towards an integrated approach to address social ...orca.cf.ac.uk/123609/1/towards an...
TRANSCRIPT
Towards an Integrated Approach to Address Social
Adaptation in Sustainability Neighbourhoods: The Potential
of Governance and Community Indicators in BREEAM
Communities
Sally Manaf Naji
May 2019
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Cardiff University
Welsh School of Architecture
DECLARATION
This work has not been submitted in substance for any other degree or award at this or any
other university or place of learning, nor is being submitted concurrently in candidature f or
any degree or other award.
Signed ……… (Candidate) Date …28/5/2019…………
STATEMENT 1:
This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
…………PhD……………… (Insert MCh, MD, MPhil, PhD etc., as appropriate)
Signed …… (Candidate) Date …28/5/2019……………
STATEMENT 2:
This thesis is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise
stated.
Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. The views expressed are my own.
Signed …… (Candidate) Date …28/5/2019……………
STATEMENT 3:
I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for
inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside
organisations.
Signed ………… (Candidate) Date …28/5/2019……………
STATEMENT 4: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BAR ON ACCESS
I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for
inter-library loans after expiry of a bar on access previously approved by the Academic
Standards & Quality Committee.
Signed …………………………………………. (Candidate) Date …28/5/2019…………...
i
ABSTRACT
With the need to achieve sustainability and adaptation to climate change for communities around
the world, the adoption of assessment tools in the development process has become a significant
issue. Fuelled by this need, Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment tools (NSAs) are
increasingly being applied in various developments and communities. BREEAM Communities (BC)
is acknowledged to be one of the most well-known and successful sustainability assessment tools
at the neighbourhood scale around the world.
The aim of this research is to contribute to the current literature in sustainability and adaptation
through identifying and evaluating the potentials of BC as a selected NSA case study to promote
and support adaptation to climate change in the social context in theory and practice.
The study was conducted in four key phases. Firstly, a literature review highlighted issues related
to the need for establishment of adaptation characteristics in the social context as well as the
identification of relevant theoretical approaches required to promote them: namely, Adaptive
Governance, Resilient Communities and Intermediaries. Secondly, the selection of the two key
relevant BREEAM Communities categories and their associated indicators as well as a relevant
practical case study for the investigation was undertaken. Media City, Salford, UK, is
demonstrated in this thesis to be an important exemplar case study that constitutes important
strategies to address community sustainability. Thirdly, analysis of the relationship between the
three identified theoretical approaches using their associated characteristics against the content
of the BC tool’s selected indicators as well as actors’ perceptions of its capacity to promote
adaptation was undertaken. Fourthly, the identification of areas that require enhancement in
terms of both indicators and characteristics was undertaken and suggestions enhancement
proposed, informed by stakeholder interviews.
According to the results, BC is considered an important tool that holds significant potential to
address the challenges of adaptation to Climate Change for communities, through its coverage
and positive performance in relation to issues at both governance & community levels, such as
actors’ consultation & engagement & management; community demographic needs and well-
being. However, it was also concluded that an area of enhancement in relation to the role of BC
is as a main intermediary tool in order to address the underevaluated issues of: community
awareness, knowledge, communication, management and adaptive behaviour and learning, in
order to reflect the overall adaptation process at the neighbourhood scale.
ii
Acknowledgement
First of all, I’m thankful to ‘Allah’ for not leaving me at all during this valuable journey of my
life.
My special thanks and appreciation go to the Higher Ministry of Education in Iraq for funding
this research and for their continuous support during the study.
My deep gratitude goes to my supervisor Dr Julie Gwilliam, who expertly guided me during
the research years and who shared with me the excitement and hard work of building this
research. Her intelligence, experience, guidance & enthusiasm kept me really engaged with
the research and thankful for working under her supervision. My special thanks go to my
second supervisor Dr Jo Patterson for her effort and support to this research especially for
the field work part. I also thank the academic staff of the WSA for providing me with
important feedback during my annual exams, especially Prof Mike Fedeski for his very useful
advices and expert opinions at the beginning of the research. I especially thank Mr Hew
Jenkins for his help and advice during the research. And I would like to thank the research
officer Ms Katrina Lewis the executive research officer in the school.
Many thanks to all the people who helped me to conduct my focus group sessions in
Manchester. Finally, I would like to thank all my friends for supporting me and for being by
my side during the research years. And my sincere appreciation also extends to all my PhD
colleagues in the WSA for their support and encouragement.
iii
Dedication
My Wonderful Mother ‘Layla’ who has always believed in me and taught me to trust
in myself and to work hard towards any decent goal in Life
…I Love you deeply Mom…
To my Father’s Soul who was and still with me all the time
To My beloved Sister ‘Dahlia’ & Brother ‘Ahmad’ for being by my side and for
providing me with their endless love…
And to my all Family and Friends! Thank you...
iv
Table of Contents ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………i
Acknowledgement …………………………………………….………………………………………………………………ii
Dedication…………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………..iii
List of Tables…………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………….viii
List of Figures…………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………….xii
Acronyms…………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………….……………………………………………..………………….1
1.1 Climate Change…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………1
1.2 Sustainability and Adaptation in a Social Context…………………………………………………………2
1.2.1 Neighbourhood Scale…………………………………………….…………………………………….……………4
1.3 The Context of Sustainability Assessment Tools……………………………………………..….…………5
1.4 Research Aim and Objectives: …………………………………………….……………….………………………6
1.5 Research Approach…………………………………………….…………………………………………..……………7
1.6 Thesis structure…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………9
Chapter 2: Literature Review: …………………………………………….……………………………………………11
2.1 Introduction…………………………………………….………………………………………………………….………11
2.2 Sustainability at the Neighbourhood Scale……………………………………………….…………………11
2.2.1 Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment Tools……………………………………..………………12
2.3 Levels for Building Adaptation in the Social Context……………………………………………………14
2.3.1 Governance level…………………………………………….………………………………………………….……16
2.3.2 Community level…………………………………………….…………………………………………..……………17
2.3.3 The Importance of Intermediaries in Bridging Gaps in the Social Context…………………19
2.4 Resilience and Adaptive Capacity as Main Integrated Concepts to Build Adaptation……23
2.4.1 The importance of Adaptive Governance & Resilience in Governance and Community
Levels…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………….25
2.5 The Identification of Characteristics for the Three Theoretical Approaches to Promote
Adaptation…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………….36
2.5.1 Adaptive Governance Theoretical Approach……………………………………………….……………37
2.5.2 Resilient Communities Theoretical Approach……………………………………………………………46
2.5.3 Intermediaries' Theoretical Approach……………………………………………….………………………51
2.6 Investigation of the Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment Potential towards Building
Social Adaptation to CC…………………………………………….……….………………………………………………57
2.7 Sub-Conclusion: …………………………………………….……………………………………………………………59
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study…………………………………………….…………………………62
3.1 Introduction…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………….62
v
3.2 The Importance of the NSA Theoretical and Practical Case Study Context…………………..63
3.2.1 Popular NSA tools………………………………………………………………………………….………………….66
3.3 Selection of NSA Case Study Tool…………………………………………….……………………………………68
3.4 Selection of BC Indicators…………………………………………….………………………………………………72
3.4.1 Governance indicators…………………………………………….…………………………………..……………76
3.4.2 Community indicators…………………………………………….…………………………………………………78
3.5 Selection of Project Case Study…………………………………………….………………………………………80
3.6 Development…………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………83
3.6.1 Physical layout and location…………………………………………….………………………….…………….84
3.6.2 Physical layout…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..85
3.6.3 Importance…………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………89
3.6.4 Policy…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………….………90
3.6.5 Governance process…………………………………………….……………………………………………………91
3.6.6 Community of MediaCity…………………………………………….……………………………………….……94
3.6.7 The importance of water sustainability…………………………………………….………………….……99
3.7 Sub-Conclusion…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………99
Chapter 4: Research Methodology……………………………………...………………….…………………102
4.1 Introduction…………………………………………….…………………………………………..……………………102
4.2 Research Structure…………………………………………….………………………………………………………103
4.3 Phase 1: Evaluation of the Theoretical Adaptive Capacity enabled by BREEAM
Communities’ Indicators in the Social Context…………………………………………………………………104
4.3.1 Phase 1 Method: Matrix Approach…………………………………………….……………………………105
4.4 Phase 2: Evaluation of the Practical Application of BC in the Media City case study…….107
4.4.1 Phase 2 Method: Actors’ Perception Analysis………………………………………..…………………109
4.5 Phase 3: Face-to-Face Interviews: Expert Perceptions of the Results from the
Community…………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………….133
4.6 Sub-Conclusion: …………………………………………….……………………………………..…………………..134
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries
analysis and BREEAM Communities………………………………..………………………………………………136
5.1 Introduction…………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………136
5.2 Adaptive Governance & BREEAM Communities: analysis & recommendations………….137
5.2.1 AG-1: Extended collaboration process…………………………………………….………………………138
5.2.2 AG-2: Build knowledge and understanding…………………………..…………………………………145
5.2.3 AG-3: Continuous Monitoring & Evaluation…………………………………………………………….156
5.2.4 AG-4: Develop Capacities when Dealing with Climate Change…………………………………159
5.3 Results & Discussion: …………………………………………….…………………………..………………………162
5.3.1 AG characteristics & BC Indicators: …………………………………………….……………………………162
vi
5.3.2 AG characteristics & Actor Perceptions: …………………………………………………………………163
5.4 Community Level…………………………………………….…………………………………………………………164
5.4.1 RC-1: Nature of Community…………………………………………………….………………………………166
5.4.2 RC-2: Community Adaptive Behaviour towards their Facilities and Built
Environment…………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………..171
5.4.3 RC-3: Community Well-being……………………………….…………………………………………………180
5.5 Discussions: …………………………………………….………………………………………………………………..186
5.5.1 Resilient Communities Characteristics & Indicators…………………………………………….…..186
5.5.2 Resilient Community Characteristics & Actor Perceptions………………………………..………186
5.6 Intermediaries…………………………………………….……………………………………………………………..188
5.6.1 I-1: Intermediaries' Role in Facilitating Knowledge Transfer………………………….…………188
5.6.2 I-2: Mediating Roles Promoting Social Change…………………………………………………………201
5.7 Discussion: …………………………………………….………………………………………………………………….210
5.7.1 Intermediary Characteristics & BC indicators: ………………..………………….……………………210
5.7.2 Intermediary Characteristics & Actor Perceptions: …………………………………………….……211
5.7.3 Mediators’ Characteristics & Actor perceptions regarding Community:…………………..212
5.7.4 Mediator Characteristics & Actor perceptions: ………………………………………………….……214
5.8 Sub-Conclusion: …………………………………………….…………………………………………………………..215
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and
Community Levels in BREEAM Communities……………..…………………………….………………217
6.1 Introduction: …………………………………………….……………………………………………………………….217
6.2 The Role of BREEAM Communities as an Intermediary……………………………………………….218
6.2.1 BC Governance Indicators & AG Characteristics………………………………….……………………220
6.2.2 BC Communities and RC characteristics: …………………………………………………………………229
6.3 Sub - Conclusion: …………………………………………….…………………………………………………………239
Chapter 7: Conclusions…………………………………………….…………………………………..………………241
7.1Contribution of the research…………………………………………….…………………………………………242
7.2 Limitations of the research…………………………………………….…………………………………..………249
7.3 Directions for further research…………………………………………….…………………….………………250
References…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………253
Appendices…………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………….282
Appendix A…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………..282
Appendix B…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………..287
Appendix C…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………..300
Appendix D…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………..309
Appendix E…………………………………………….…………………………………………………………….………….312
vii
Appendix F…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………..332
Appendix G…………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………….340
viii
List of Tables
Chapter Two
Table 2.1: Themesof Adaptive Governance theoretical approach .......................................29
Table 2.2: Themes of Resilient Communities theoretical approach .....................................31
Table 2.3: Themes of Adaptive Governance theoretical approach ......................................34
Table 2.4: Characteristics to enable AG-1: Extended Collaboration process ........................39
Table 2.5: Characteristics to enable AG-2: Build knowledge and understanding..................42
Table 2.6: Characteristics to enable AG-3: Continuous testing, monitoring, and evaluation 44
Table 2.7: Characteristics to enable AG-4: Develop capacities with CC impacts ...................46
Table 2.8: Characteristics to enable RC-1: Nature of Community ........................................47
Table 2.9: Characteristics to enable RC-2: Community adaptive behaviour towards their
facilities and built environment ..........................................................................................49
Table 2.10: Characteristics to enable RC-3: Community Well-being ....................................51
Table 2.11: Characteristics to enable I-1: Mediation between different research disciplines to
facilitate knowledge transfer & Learning ............................................................................54
Table 2.12: Characteristics to enable I-2: Empower the role of local Communities ..............57
Table 2.13: AG & RC & I Themes & characteristics ..............................................................61
Chapter Three
Table 3. 1: Well-known NSA tools …………………………………....................................................66
Table 3-2: Percentages of mandatory and optional elements in NSA tools…………. ..............69
Table 3. 3: The main categories of the three NSAs ..............................................................71
Table 3. 4: Five main categories of BC ................................................................................73
Table 3. 5: Overall BC categories & indicators .....................................................................74
Table 3. 6: Governance_ category context and indicators_ BC ............................................77
Table 3. 7: Social and Economic Well-Being Context Indicators in BC ..................................78
Chapter Four
Table 4.1: Proposed categories for the application of a matrix approach method .............106
Table 4.2: An example for the application of the Matrix approach to the BC indicators ....109
Table 4.3: Professionals’ Questionnaire Parts and Contents .............................................114
Table 4.4: Respondents from the Media City case study ...................................................115
ix
Table 4.5: AG themes and characteristics and the relevant question numbers and options
........................................................................................................................................119
Table 4.6: Example: AG-1: Extended collaboration process characteristics and associated
questions .........................................................................................................................119
Table 4.7: RC themes and characteristics and the relevant question numbers and options
........................................................................................................................................120
Table 4.8: Example: RC-2: Community adaptive behaviour towards their facilities and built
environment characteristics and associated questions .....................................................121
Table 4.9: I themes and characteristics and related question numbers and sections .........122
Table 4.10: Example: I-1: Intermediaries’ role in facilitating knowledge characteristics and
associated questions ........................................................................................................123
Table 4.11: Questionnaire parts and contents for the local community of Media City.......124
Table 4.12: Structure for the focus groups sessions: Community investigation .................128
Table 4.13: Example of focus group characteristics relationship to RC characteristics .......128
Chapter Five
Table 5. 1: Adaptive Governance themes & characteristics ...............................................137
Table 5. 2: The analysis of C.1 in the governance context of BC ........................................138
Table 5. 3: Experts responses for the main parties and roles for adaptation to CC ............140
Table 5. 4: The analysis of C.2 in the Governance Context of BC .......................................142
Table 5. 5: Experts responses for the role and support provided for the information about CC
adaptation by the associated institutions .........................................................................144
Table 5. 6: The analysis of C.3 in the governance context of BC ........................................145
Table 5. 7: The Influences of Climate Change Impacts ......................................................147
Table 5. 8: The effects of CC Impacts on Water Infrastructure ..........................................147
Table 5. 9: The analysis of C.4 in the governance context of BC ........................................149
Table 5. 10: Expert responses related to the shared participation of knowledge ways in Media
City ..................................................................................................................................152
Table 5. 11: The analysis of C.5 in the governance context of BC ......................................153
Table 5. 12: Expert responses regarding the applied strategies which influence the physical
performance of facilities (water) ......................................................................................155
Table 5. 13: The analysis of C.6 in the governance context of BC ......................................157
Table 5. 14: The analysis of C.7 in the governance context of BC ......................................159
Table 5. 15: Expert responses on the strategies that influence capacity for risks ...............161
x
Table 5. 16: Adaptive Governance Characteristics & BC Indicators....................................162
Table 5. 17: Perceptions of experts & local community on the Adaptive Governance
Characteristics .................................................................................................................163
Table 5. 18: Integration of findings in BC indicators & actors’ perception towards AG
characteristics ..................................................................................................................164
Table 5. 19: Resilience community themes & Characteristics ............................................165
Table 5. 20: The indicators of BC for the social context .....................................................165
Table 5. 21: The analysis of C.8 for the social indicators of BC...........................................166
Table 5. 22: The analysis of C.9 of the social indicators of BC ...........................................171
Table 5. 23: The analysis of C.10 of the social indicators of BC ..........................................174
Table 5. 24: the analysis of C.11 of the social indicators of BC...........................................177
Table 5. 25: Experts perceptions on sustainability strategies in buildings ..........................179
Table 5. 26: The analysis of C.11 of the social indicators of BC ..........................................181
Table 5. 27: Resilience Communities Characteristic & Role of BREEAM Communities .......186
Table 5. 28: Experts and community perceptions on Resilience Communities Characteristic
........................................................................................................................................187
Table 5. 29: Experts and community perceptions on Resilient Communities Characteristic
........................................................................................................................................187
Table 5. 30: Intermediaries characteristics- governance ...................................................188
Table 5. 31: the analysis of C.14 of governance in BC ........................................................189
Table 5. 32: The analysis of C.13 of governance in BC .......................................................189
Table 5. 33: Experts Identification through the BC ............................................................190
Table 5. 34: analysis of C.14 of the Governance in BC .......................................................192
Table 5. 35: The analysis of C.14 of the Governance in BC ................................................192
Table 5. 36: The role of BC in collaboration, training and learning across Media City ........193
Table 5. 37: The analysis of C.15 of the Governance in BC ................................................194
Table 5. 38: The analysis of C.15 of the Governance in BC ................................................194
Table 5. 39: The analysis of C.16 in the governance context in Bc .....................................196
Table 5. 40: The analysis of C.16 in the social context in BC ..............................................196
Table 5. 41:The analysis of C.17 in the governance context in BC......................................199
Table 5. 42: The analysis of C.17 for the social context in BC ............................................199
Table 5. 43: Mediator characteristics ................................................................................201
Table 5. 44: The analysis of C.18 of Governance context in BC ..........................................201
Table 5. 45: The analysis of C.18 of Governance in BC ......................................................202
Table 5. 46: Identification of actors & their roles through the BC ......................................203
xi
Table 5. 47: The analysis of C.19 for Governance context in BC ........................................204
Table 5. 48: The analysis of C.19 for social context in BC...................................................205
Table 5. 49: The analysis of C.18 for the Governance context in BC ..................................207
Table 5. 50: The analysis of C.18 for the social context in BC ............................................207
Table 5. 51: Intermediary Characteristics & relations to BC indicators of the governance
context ............................................................................................................................210
Table 5. 52: Intermediary Characteristics & relations to BC indicators of the social context
........................................................................................................................................210
Table 5. 53: Expert and community perceptions on Intermediary characteristics at
governance level ..............................................................................................................211
Table 5. 54: The integration of findings in BC indicators & actor perceptions of Intermediary
characteristics ..................................................................................................................212
Table 5. 55: The integration of findings in BC indicators and actors' perceptions on
Intermediary characteristics .............................................................................................212
Table 5. 56: Mediators’ characteristics & relations to BC indicators of the governance context
........................................................................................................................................213
Table 5. 57: Mediators’ characteristics & relations to BC indicators of the social context ..213
Table 5.58: Expert and community perceptions on mediators Characteristics at the
community level ..............................................................................................................214
Table 5. 59: The integration of findings in BC governance indicators & actors’ perceptions of
Mediators characteristics .................................................................................................214
Table 5. 60: The integration of findings in BC social indicators & actor perceptions of
mediators’ characteristics ................................................................................................215
Chapter Six
Table 6. 1: Characteristics & key BC indicators with the negative performance that are
identified in Chapter 5......................................................................................................219
Table 6. 2: The AG & I characteristics of negative performance and associated governance
indicators of BC ................................................................................................................220
Table 6. 3: The RC & relevant AI characteristics evaluated as negative community indicators
of BC ................................................................................................................................230
xii
List of Figures
Chapter Two
Figure 2. 1: Neighbourhood management – areas of responsibility and organisation..........21
Figure 2.2:The Integrated Approach to promote social adaptation to CC at the neighbourhood
scale ..................................................................................................................................35
Chapter Three
Figure 3. 1: Examples of two community projects certified by BREEAM Communities (A & B)
..........................................................................................................................................81
Figure 3. 2: Salford Quays in Manchester ...........................................................................82
Figure 3. 3: Phase one of MediaCity ...................................................................................84
Figure 3. 4: Salford Quays location .....................................................................................84
Figure 3. 5: Typically, the road and public realm areas should radiate from the waterfront,
with larger development plots to the north of Quays Point ................................................85
Figure 3. 6: The housing apartments ..................................................................................86
Figure 3. 7: Bridges in Media City .......................................................................................86
Figure 3. 8: Phase two in Media City ...................................................................................88
Figure 3. 9: Phase three of MediaCity .................................................................................89
Figure 3. 10: The iconic sustainable MediaCity project .......................................................90
Figure 3. 11: The main actors in the governance process to address sustainability in MediaCity
..........................................................................................................................................94
Figure 3. 12: BBC & ITV studios in Media City .....................................................................96
Figure 3. 13: Lowry outlets and the open space that is used for the social events and activities
for MediaCity community & visitors ...................................................................................97
Figure 3. 14: Salford University in MediaCity ......................................................................98
Chapter Four
Figure 4. 1: The research methods applied .......................................................................104
Figure 4. 2: Analysis of the matrix approach regarding the relationship between the BC
indicators and the characteristics of the AG, RC, and I theories ........................................108
Figure 4. 3: Focus group session set-up in Media City .......................................................129
xiii
Figure 4. 4: Invitation card used for the focus groups sessions in the Media City case study
........................................................................................................................................130
Figure 4. 5: An illustration of the results of the coding process for positive and negative
aspects relating to characteristics of community engagement..........................................132
Figure 4. 6: NVIVO breakdown of positive and negative aspects relating to the characteristic
of community social engagement .....................................................................................133
Chapter Five
Figure 5.1 View of the river in Media City………………….......................................................169
Figure 5.2 Open green spaces in Media City .....................................................................170
Figure 5.3 View of the walk areas and river in Media City .................................................183
Figure 5. 4 Parking areas in Media City .............................................................................185
xiv
Acronyms
BC BREEAM Communities
CC Climate Change
AG Adaptive Governance
RC Resilient Community
I Intermediaries
NSAs Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment Tools
FRA Flood Risk Assessment
ACC Adapting to Climate Change
Co Community
Chapter 1: Introduction
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Climate Change
Climate change is widely acknowledged as a complex and evolving issue, as climatic changes
can create feedback loops that then negatively reinforce each other (Wilder et al 2010). An
increase in frequency and magnitude of extreme climatic events is the most likely form in
which longer term climate change will be manifest (Tompkins and Adger 2004). Thus, the
frequency, geographical range, and magnitude of extreme events is expected to increase,
with events such as that experienced in central Europe during the summer of 2000, where
extremely unusual long-lived high temperatures led to the deaths of over 20,000 people (Pan
et al 2010), becoming more common. Extreme weather events, increased precipitation
fluctuation, and other climate change impacts all pose substantial threats to human lives and
lead to an increased need for communities’ abilities to adapt to be enhanced (Lindsay 2018).
Unfortunately, however, current responses to climate change have tended to focus on
mitigation and responses to short term impacts, ignoring all potentially appropriate and
necessary capacity for adaptation to the longer-term impacts.
Climate change has inevitable impacts on urban systems and communities (Tyler and Moench
2012), and the issues raised by climate change present real challenges that can dramatically
hinder the achievement of sustainability goals (Burch et al 2014). Climate adaptation has thus
become a pressing issue (Eriksen et al 2011). In particular, climate change increases rainfall
variability and average temperatures, influencing both the supply and demand sides of water
usage and affecting irrigation, making strategies for enhancing water security and agricultural
productivity essential; adaptation to climate change is thus an urgent issue (Kakumanu et al
2018).
Adaptation is thus an important strategy that aims to reduce the variable and harmful effects
of climate change to lessen its effects on communities’ lives (Kakumanu et al 2018). The term
can also refer to changes in the processes, practices, and structures used to act against or,
potentially, benefit from the opportunities associated with the effects of climate change
(Smit & Pilifosova, 2001, p. 879). This includes changes and adjustments that happen in
various contexts, whether social, ecological, or economic, that are essential to manage
climatic changes and their impacts.
Chapter 1: Introduction
2
Accordingly, the development of methods and tools to enable appropriate responses to the
risks associated with climate change must be prioritised (Parry et al 2007), leading to a need
for analysis and discussion regarding both short term and likely long term impacts. This must,
however, be tempered by the recognition that not every adaptation to climate change is a
good one, drawing attention to the need for sustainable adaptation strategies and measures
that contribute to social justice and environmental integrity (Eriksen et al 2011). In this
context, therefore, sustainability is important insofar as it involves the practical processes
and strategies required to reduce various harmful impacts of human development, including
climate change. Engle (2011) argued that there is a substantial need to understand the
process required to design actions and deliver desirable outcomes in the context of the
relationship between adaptation and sustainability, as well as a need to address the types of
decision-support tools and metrics that can facilitate this delivery process in the face of
climate change.
1.2 Sustainability and Adaptation in a Social Context
It has been acknowledged in the literature that the social context, in particular, the relevant
population or community, must be capable of adapting to the variable impacts of climate
change (CC) for successful adaptation to occur. The social context is particularly important in
the context of addressing adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity in the social context, which
may be referred to in the literature as “human system”, “communities”, or “population”, has
increasingly become a necessity in relation to mitigating or adapting to the effects of CC. In
all cases, adaptation requires an adjustment process that is undertaken by people in
response to CC effects; done well, this may access benefits from opportunities associated
with CC and moderate negative potential changes (Grothmann and Patt 2005).
In this research, the social context is thus related to a focus on communities that affect and
are affected by the adaptation processes that are promoted or implemented through built
environment development and or the regeneration decision making process. This focus on
the social context requires the integration of focus on both community and the policy or the
decision making that enables the building of adaptive capacity to CC for the community.
Laukkonen et al (2009) argued that adaptation to CC is more likely to be based on a local
sustainable development framework that incorporates social and economic issues rather
than those focusing specifically on environmental measures. The need for sustainable
development is thus paramount in the light of major concerns around the negative effects of
Chapter 1: Introduction
3
urbanisation on the environment (Sharifi and Murayama 2013). In the context of policy and
under various decision-making scenarios, sustainable development has thus become an
important and comprehensive target (Rotmans 2006), and addressing adaptive capacity to
CC can be regarded as an essential component of such sustainable development targets and
strategies. “Sustainability is intimately related to various measures of risk and uncertainty
about a future we cannot know, but which we can surely influence” (Loucks 2000, p3). Work
on the adaptive capacity of local community is thus important and should be considered core
to both sustainable development and resilience building processes (Lebel et al 2006).
The integration between sustainability and the adaptation to CC is not a new issue. The link
between sustainability and adaptation to CC has been indicated by various studies within the
literature in different scenarios, and has been examined in relation to scale (Folke et al 2002;
Kreimer et al 2003); sector (MacDonald 2010); management (Wall and Smit 2005); policy
(Swart 2003); governmental and decision-making structures (Wall and Smit 2005; Lockwood
2013); information (Melville 2010); the protection of climate resources (Ikeme 2003); and
business and industry (Shaw et al 2014). Thus, the protection of communities and their
associated resources across various sectors has been acknowledged as an important
commonality between sustainability and CC adaptation. Nevertheless, and despite the
general acknowledgement of this close relationship, there is a lack of understanding in the
current academic literature of how sustainability can be used to manage CC impacts (Bond
et al 2012). Further, there remains a lack of understanding as to how sustainability might be
employed to manage CC impacts in terms of delivering positive net sustainability gains both
now and in the future (Bond et al 2012).
While the concept of sustainability is associated with managing relationships between social
systems and the environment (Boyle et al 2018), it must also be recognised that strategies
for adaptation to CC must be integrated in a suitable manner with communities’ sustainable
development (Laukkonen 2009). “Sustainability of community involves social interaction
between community members; the relative stability of the community, both in terms of
overall maintenance of numbers/ balance (net migration) and of the turnover of individual
members; the existence of, and participation in, local collective institutions, formal and
informal; levels of trust across the community, including issues of security from threats; and
a positive sense of identification with, and pride in, the community” (Dempsey et al 2011,
p293-294).
Chapter 1: Introduction
4
Despite the general acknowledgement of a close relationship, there is a lack of understanding
of how sustainability can be used to manage CC impacts (Bond et al 2012). This work, thus,
aims to argue that creating the integration process requires the combining of resilience and
adaptive capacity principles with sustainability development tools. As such, the evaluation of
relevant sustainability development tools in terms of characteristics associated with
resilience and adaptive capacity is proposed as effective in terms of advancing both the
theory and practice of such a combination. This integration, however, must be applied at
both the decision making and the implementation stages of strategies at the community
level; intervention at these two levels is thus considered essential to the process of building
adaptation strategies to address climate change in the social context.
1.2.1 Neighbourhood Scale
Having established that the relevant focus should be on the community in order to promote
adaptation as a priority, it can thus be argued that the neighbourhood is the most relevant
scale at which to address adaptation potential. The scale of neighbourhood is an essential
factor in addressing sustainability in a physical neighbourhood, as it stands in relation to
community assets and the interactions between them (Yigitcanlar and Dur 2010). Thus, the
concept of neighbourhood can be seen to incorporate both place and people.
Neighbourhood scale is important not only in terms of the physical built environment but
also as the best scale at which to form a sense of community, a highly important ingredient
of resilience (Uda and Kennedy 2015). Addressing adaptation on this scale is thus more
influential in terms of both peoples’ lives and the sustainability of resources.
The neighbourhood also represents a middle level of analysis and action between the city
and single buildings (Lützkendorf and Balouktsi 2017). Zheng et al (2017) identified that
neighbourhoods can be demonstrated to be geographical planned sub-regions of a city
where residents interact and share services and facilities; these are then connected under
the umbrella of a city. Subsequently, the importance of the neighbourhood scale is that it
represents a key part of peoples’ everyday lives and existence, being the scale at which the
processes of engagement and interaction between groups of people who live, work, and
engage in various activities together are acted out (Platts-Fowler and Robinson 2013).
Building adaptive capacity at the neighbourhood scale thus provides a geographic focus to
this research. However, it must be noted that examining sustainability at the neighbourhood
Chapter 1: Introduction
5
scale does require much more complex issues to be addresses than examining the
performance of single buildings (Lützkendorf and Balouktsi 2017).
1.3 The Context of Sustainability Assessment Tools
Sustainability assessments tools have a rich and advanced history; since the emergence of
the concept of sustainable development, its measurement has been considered as an
effective method for its promotion (Sharifi and Murayama 2015), and it has been argued that
it is important to adopt measurable targets for sustainable development as they provide the
main organising principle for global cooperation by means of addressing economic
development, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability (UN SDGs 2015). The need
for sustainable development is paramount, particularly when considering the negative
effects of urbanisation on the environment (Sharifi and Murayama 2013). Thus, several
existing sustainability assessment tools as referred to in the literature are available, and
these provide a range of indicators, across a breadth of sectors, that aim to guarantee
appropriate endeavours in the conservation of the environment; however, in many cases,
this explicitly refers to the mitigation of rather than adaptation to climate change (Bakar and
Cheen 2013). Nevertheless, sustainability assessment tools are considered to be significant
and widespread means to address and promote sustainable development targets in the built
environment sector, and thus these tools are widely considered to be essential in achieving
sustainability in environmental, social, and economic contexts.
The adoption of sustainability assessment tools does provide support in adapting to climate
change, however, due to their effects on the management of resources (Parry et al 2007);
they can also direct decision-making towards sustainability, within which climate change
mitigation strategies are likely to be embedded (Bond et al 2012). Such strategies and tools
are constructed as dynamic strategies, that are capable of responding to required changes
(Eriksen et al 2011), whether climate changes or any other type; thus, it has been broadly
argued that adaptation to change is embedded with these tools. Elsewhere, however, the
complexity of the process of sustainable development, and the tools’ application across a
breadth of sectors of development has raised concerns that the extent to which these tools
can be certain to address adaptation is limited (Rotmans 2006).
Chapter 1: Introduction
6
Several recent studies have aimed to link the effects of sustainability assessment tools on
climate change with the effects that rapid urbanisation on certain nations, determining
where physical and non-physical aspects give rise to the local adaptability to climate change
which is necessary for applying the contextual nature of space to the development of these
sustainability tools (Dawodu et al 2017). However, there is still a need to further focus on
linking these tools with risk and building resilience scenarios through analysing the indicators
of performance in both theory and practice. Matthews et al (2014) concluded that these
sustainability assessment systems did not adequately account for hazard resilience and
argued that there should be more concentrated efforts made towards including adaptation
to climate change to adequately address hazard resilience where these sustainable
assessment tools are applied.
Furthermore, despite the importance of sustainability assessment tools in terms of educating
users and enabling the incorporation of sustainability strategies into planning, design, and
construction, a substantial gap remains in users’ ability to incorporate hazard resistance and
hazard mitigation into the broader context of sustainable design (Matthews et al 2014).
These tools can be important in terms of addressing many of the key ideas associated with
adaptation to climate change, particularly in the context of resource management and
decision making; they do, however, need to be developed and implemented widely as well
as embedded in decision making processes. In this context, it is proposed that there is a
potential to achieve this through an investigation of how existing widely adopted
neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools might be better utilised to address these
issues.
In this context, based on the increase in the number of sustainability assessment tools around
the world and the importance of both sustainability and climate change adaptation at the
neighbourhood scale, tools at this scale have thus been chosen for the current research.
1.4 Research Aim and Objectives:
This overall aim of this thesis is to investigate the role of an international sustainability
assessment tool, BREEAM Communities, in enabling adaptation in the social context based
on its role as an intermediary in a neighbourhood development project. This study will
Chapter 1: Introduction
7
examine the BREEAM Communities tool in the form of a case study that integrates the
characteristics of adaptation in top-down, bottom-up, and intermediation processes.
The main objectives for this thesis are thus:
1. To establish a theoretical framework for the evaluation of adaptation in the social
context by identifying the main applicable theoretical approaches and their associated
characteristics.
2. To identify the importance of Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment tools based on
their potential to support adaptation in the social context in both theory and practice.
3. To evaluate the theoretical capacity of the case study NSA (BREEAM Communities) in
terms of enabling adaptation based on an analysis of relevant constituent indicators in
relation to the three identified theoretical approaches.
4. To investigate the impact of the case study NSA in application to the project case study
(Media City) in terms of the promotion of adaptation through an analysis of the actors’
perceptions in relation to the three identified theoretical approaches.
5. To evaluate the implications of key findings that can potentially be applied to enhance
the role of the case study NSA at governance and community levels, thus identifying its
strategic enhancement potential.
1.5 Research Approach
The research questions, aims and objectives of this thesis were identified based on a careful
literature review that included identifying research gaps in current studies regarding the
development of an integrated approach towards investigating the adaptation of the social
context at the neighbourhood scale through the application of NSA tools. Due to the
significant gap in research in the social context with regard to applying a theoretical
framework that combines levels of governance and community, and their connections at the
neighbourhood scale, the adoption of Adaptive Governance, Resilience Community, and
Chapter 1: Introduction
8
Intermediaries were the key theoretical approaches applied in the development of an
analytical approach for this thesis.
A matrix approach, featuring expert questionnaires, focus groups, and local community
interviews, was used to analyse the extent to which adaptation evaluation characteristics are
enabled when BC is applied in practice. The indicators analysis facilitated by this matrix
approach was important in terms of understanding each NSA indicator and its theoretical
basis in relation to each of the evaluation characteristics. For this research, as the main focus
is on governance and social contexts as the two main levels that influence adaptation to CC,
in BC, the indicators associated with governance and social contexts were identified as a
focus: Governance and Social well-being. Those indicators with a focus on physical context,
such as energy, water, or transportation, were not included in this research, as the main focus
is on addressing community adaptation to CC in social terms, that is, in relation to community
participation with, engagement with, and preparation for CC throughout the development
process governance and delivery stages. Thus, the outcomes of physical context indicators,
would be influenced both by the professionals engaged in design and construction, drivers
embedded in these indicators and by those actors engaged by indicators located in the social
and governance contexts. It is this latter influence on the design, construction and operation
of the physical that is of interest to this study. Examination of this social aspect of
sustainability in the context of sustainability assessment tools is lacking within the existing
literature and thus requires specific focus and attention, while physical impacts are more
subject to focus in the literature.
The indicators associated with governance in BC were examined against Adaptive
governance characteristics, while the indicators of social well-being were examined against
the Resilient Communities characteristics; intermediary characteristics were examined in
both groups of indicators.
In terms of the case study, Media City was selected for four reasons:
- the first is its importance as the first neighbourhood regeneration project in the
world developed with the application of BC.
- The second is that it involved a wide breadth of actors in the governance process due
to the complexity associated with adaptive governance potentials.
- The third is that the focus on community sustainability was a core target behind the
development of this project in environmental, social, and economic aspects; and
Chapter 1: Introduction
9
- the fourth was its specific focus on water and the strategies that were thus important
for adaptation to CC.
Therefore, the incorporation of perceptions from both experts and the community involved
in this project offers important results with regard to potential adaptation characteristics and
BC indicator performance, including the identification of negative characteristics and
indicators resulting from this integration process. Finally, it allowed any negative
performance of both indicators and characteristics to be identified. A final phase of
interviews was undertaken to establish experts’ perceptions towards the negative indicators,
with regard to potential enhancements to the BC and its process of application.
1.6 Thesis structure
The thesis is organised in seven chapters including the introduction; the ensuing sections are
a literature review; selection of the case study; research methodology; analysis of the results;
a discussion of implications and enhancements; and, finally, the conclusion.
Chapter Two reviews literature associated with the main issues that influence the topic of
this study. It establishes the main theoretical approaches relating to the adaptation of the
social context in neighbourhoods and how this affects communities’ capabilities to adapt to
CC. In addition, it reviews the approaches used to investigate adaptation to CC in the social
context in neighbourhoods and establishes an evaluation framework, including themes and
characteristics, applied in this research.
Chapter Three is concerned with developing the main assumptions of the study relating to
the identification of a case study for investigation. It presents the arguments for the selection
of BREEAM Communities as the main selected case study. It also identifies the importance of
assessment tool indicators for application in the theoretical analysis as well as discussing the
selection of the project for the case study, which is Media City, Salford, UK.
Chapter Four provides the methodology for the research, explaining the methods used for
conducting this research and the data analysis performed in this study. It describes the survey
and interview methods’ development along with the procedures used for data analysis.
Chapter Five presents the results of the core phases of this study. It focuses on the findings
related to the analysis of BC indicators based on the research framework established in
chapter 2.. It also presents an analysis of the expert and local community perceptions of
Chapter 1: Introduction
10
Media City in order to better explain the performance of the framework’s characteristics and
indicators, in theory and practice.
Chapter Six provides a discussion of the main findings and the potential for enhancement
with regard to the characteristics and BC indicators investigated and the possible implications
of the proposed enhancements on the development project. In this chapter, experts’
perceptions on the findings and the potentials for enhancement, resulting from a final phase
of interviews, are also presented.
Chapter Seven discusses the main contribution of this study and reflects on the aims,
objectives, and research questions initially presented in this work. Finally, it describes the
limitations of this research and offers recommendations for future research on this topic.
A list of the essential appendices can be found at the end of this study; these support the
content of various chapters.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
11
Chapter 2: Literature Review:
2.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to build an integrated approach for a framework to investigate social
adaptation in neighbourhoods in the context of sustainability. It is acknowledged that
Climate Change (CC) is having inevitable impacts on both the built environment and
populations (Tyler and Moench 2012); and the issue of CC is presenting a real challenge that
can dramatically hinder the achievement of sustainability goals (Burchet al 2014). In
considering the relationship between sustainability and CC, the application of sustainability
assessment tools is a key issue that requires investigation, especially when it comes to tools
applicable at the neighbourhood scale.
It is argued that in order to investigate the potential for social adaptation of neighbourhoods,
it is vital to build an integrated approach that encompasses both governance and community
levels. Here, intermediaries have a significant role in connecting these two levels and thus
their importance needs to be understood and acknowledged.
Therefore, three main theoretical approaches are presented here: Adaptive Governance,
Community Resilience Factors, and Intermediaries, for possible application in the
investigative framework for this research, followed by identification of their characteristics.
An extensive literature review is conducted in order to establish relevant characteristics for
the evaluation/ understanding of sustainable social adaptation of neighbourhoods. Nine
main themes and 20 associated characteristics are identified and presented.
In the final part of this chapter, the discussion centres on the adoption of integrated tools at
the neighborhood scale (Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment tools or NSAs). It is
concluded that NSAs can be important in the promotion of adaptation in the social context
through their importance in the governance process and promoting the sustainability
outcomes for communities as main applied strategies that comprise both indicators and
actors.
2.2 Sustainability at the Neighbourhood Scale
Sustainability has become an increasingly important element to be considered in the
planning of urban areas. Although it is central in the consideration of cities, for some reason
it has received less attention in the development of neighbourhoods. Yet cities cannot be
Chapter 2: Literature Review
12
considered sustainable if their component parts, such as neighbourhoods, do not meet
sustainability criteria (Choguill 2008).
It is acknowledged that the neighbourhood scale is regarded as the most effective scale at
which to take account of linkages between the different parts of the urban system, such as
population, buildings, land uses, transportation, water, energy, biodiversity, air, geology and
topography (Sharifi and Murayama 2013). What is interesting in the definitions is that what
exactly a neighbourhood is, lies primarily in the eyes of the beholder (Choguill 2008).
Indeed, neighbourhood represents:
a key component of the social and material setting of everyday life, that shapes
opportunities for interaction and engagement, contains key resources that inform the
experiences of individuals, households and groups of people who reside therein and
inform different outcomes in different places (Platts-Fowler and Robinson 2013, P4).
Generally, it is acknowledged that sustainability has become an increasingly important
element to be considered in the planning of urban areas, at the city or neighbourhood scale.
Although neighbourhood planning has a relatively long history, it was not until the beginning
of the 21st century that planners and environmentalists began to design tools for
Sustainability Assessment at the neighbourhood scale (Sharifi 2013).
It is acknowledged that the neighbourhood scale is a relevant scale for promoting adaptation
in the social context. Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment tools have the potential to
involve a focus on communities, actors and people; in contrast to the physical focus of
building assessment tools (Reith and Orova 2015), they represent greater potential to
address adaptive capacity to Climate Change.
This scale should be considered as central and be prioritised in order to develop efficient,
sustainable neighbourhood systems and understand the extent to which NSAs are addressing
adaptive capacity to CC in their coverage and performance is an important issue for research.
2.2.1 Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment Tools
It is argued that the complexity of CC, in terms of which response to involve and at what level,
requires clear processes and methods as well as adequate tools (Laukkonen et al 2009).
Globally, there is an increase in the adoption and application of ‘Sustainability Assessment
Tools’, which have been effectively and widely adopted to address and deliver more socially,
economically, and environmentally appropriate development of the built environment over
Chapter 2: Literature Review
13
the last two decades (Sharifi and Murayama 2014). It should be said, however, that the
relationship between these tools and CC to promote adaptation is not a clear issue. As Engle
(2011) demonstrated, the relationship between CC and sustainability is still not sufficiently
addressed, particularly in the current sustainability literature. This is particularly evident
when it comes to gaps in the explanation of the application of the frameworks in the social
context and the planning of adaptation strategies to promote adaptation to CC (Gillard et al
2016; Rodriguez et al 2018).
NSAs can be recognised as the latest generation of impact assessment tools (Sharifi and
Murayama 2013, 2014), where NSAs aim to evaluate the performance of neighbourhood
development or regeneration according to a specific group of standards (Sharifi and
Murayama 2013; Reith and Orova 2014). These tools mainly aim to assess the
neighbourhoods’ position with regard to the delivery of specific sustainability targets (Sharifi
and Murayama 2013) and have become widespread since the beginning of the 21st century,
mainly in the developed world.
These tools need to be developed and implemented widely, as well as embedded in the
decision-making process. In this context, with the increase of the number of sustainability
assessment tools around the world, and with the importance of both sustainability and CC
adaptation at the neighbourhood or community level, tools at this scale are considered key
topics for investigation. With this in mind, many scholars such as (Engle 2011; Arnott et al
2016; Rodriguez et al 2018) assert that there is a substantial need to understand the process
required to design actions and deliver desirable outcomes in the context of the relationship
between adaptation and sustainability, as well as addressing the types of decision support
tools and measures that can facilitate this delivery process in the face of CC.
The sustainability tools or, as named in the literature, the sustainability assessment tools are
considered a significant means with which to address sustainability development targets.
These tools are essential in achieving sustainability in the environmental, social and
economic contexts.
Although neighbourhood planning has a relatively long history, planners and
environmentalists have only recently begun to design tools for sustainability assessment at
the neighbourhood scale (Sharifi 2013). The NSAs are considered crucial compared with the
tools at the buildings scale or at the city scale. Addressing sustainability at the neighbourhood
scale is important because many of the problems encountered at the city scale are, in fact,
cumulative consequences of poor planning at the neighbourhood level (Said et al 2009).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
14
At the building scale, sustainability tools typically fail to provide a complete assessment of
the cumulative impacts of sustainability and do not adequately depict sustainable
development, nor do they sufficiently address adaptation (Sharifi and Murayama 2014;
Sullivan et al 2014; Kang et al 2016). Moreover, while tools at the city scale have been
discussed in many studies (Turcu 2012; Sharifi and Murayama 2014), there is a level of
complexity involved when focusing on this scale, with the aim to achieve sustainable urban
development targets in the long term. Indeed, more broadly, urban sustainability has
attracted much criticism, as urban areas rely on too many external resources, and these
regions are, and probably will always be, net consumers of resources (Turcu 2012).
Therefore, the potential of NSA tools to address social adaptation in relation to both
governance and community is a key issue in this research, due to their importance for
sustainable development, and in relation to sustainability and CC adaptation.
2.3 Levels for Building Adaptation in the Social Context
It was argued earlier that the social context mainly refers to adaptation in association with
community adaptation to CC and its potential risks. The community level is relatively
neglected and therefore requires more attention (Berkes and Ross 2013). Adaptation is
required for the various divisions of community in order to face the potential impacts of
climate change, despite the level of action taken by local government and national policies
(Vignola et al 2009; Roberts 2010). There are still gaps around how to evolve more
sustainable and resilient urban communities into sharp focus, with the increased CC impacts
(Stevenson and Petrescu 2016).
Therefore, the inputs of the local community must be in tune with any outcomes of the
adaptation process, which requires the inclusion of the local community in the decision-
making process, known as ‘bottom-up’ planning. This is associated with the inclusion of
important aspects that could help in enabling adaptation of the various individuals or local
communities to the potential impacts and risks (Wibly and Dessai 2010). Such incorporation
of the opinions of the local people could help in determining the issues which might cause
hindrance to adaptation to CC (Pelling 2010).
Nevertheless, it is argued that the complexity of addressing adaptation in the social context
is also associated with the complexity of the governance systems. Governance is an example
of a driving force of adaptive capacity that is difficult to capture in an indicator, despite it
Chapter 2: Literature Review
15
being widely accepted that good governance and institutional structures are important in
promoting adaptive capacity (Vincent 2007). It is argued that the impacts of CC affect the
development and decision-making processes through transfer within professional actors’
information about various subjects (Linder et al 2010).
It is also considered that failing to address adaptation for communities will leave them in a
state of poor preparation and behaviour with regards to the climatic changes that are
expected over the next few decades (Ebi and Semenza 2008). Importantly, this requires that
local communities themselves be capable of adapting to the variable impacts of CC (Roberts
2010). It has also been acknowledged that the strengthening of the role of the local
community, and the need for policymakers to empower local and indigenous communities
to facilitate adaptation processes through taking local traditional knowledge into
consideration is a valuable step towards achieving adaptive capacity in the neighbourhood
context (Vignola et al 2009).
It should be said that with the importance of building social adaptation, it is acknowledged
that the connections among the various actors at both levels is necessary in order to lessen
the gaps among the actors and to increase the effective engagement process of various
actors towards building adaptation. The emergence of connections of the various
organisations or institutions supports collaborative actions and addresses the adaptation
strategies for communities (Folke et al 2005). It is recognised that the collaborative networks
are considered a crucial factor in defining the responses needed for the communities’
interaction towards environmental changes (Brown and Westaway 2011).
Networking promotes efficient communication and collaboration among the actors in order
to enable the process of building adaptation outcomes. Therefore, it is important to
understand that networking has a role in mediating the adaptation between governance and
the local community levels. The next part of this chapter shows the main definitions of
governance, community and intermediaries as important components for adaptation. Latour
(2005) has clarified that, in Actors Network Theory (ANT)1 terms, the network is a method,
not a thing ‘out there’ to be discovered. Primarily, ANT is important when it comes to the
increased challenges that are associated with the technological and environmental changes
in relation to the lack of collaboration and interaction between society and social networks
(Rydin 2006), and to influence the effects of our actions and change the way we move
1Actor–network theory (ANT) is a theoretical and methodological approach to social theory where everything in the social and natural worlds exists in constantly shifting networks of relationships (Latour 1990).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
16
through the world (Yaneva 2009). Thus, social networks are important and add information
regarding the relations of humans in a social and natural world, which is the very essence of
societies and natures (Latour 1996).
2.3.1 Governance level
The term ‘governance’ is used in the literature as an alternative to the conventional top-
down process of decision-making by an authority and refers to the role of institutions
associated with collaboration and networks (Folke et al 2005). It points towards the
preparations and plans of the various institutions, including the important role of the
authority with other community groups or organisations (Hatfield-Dodds et al 2007).
It is recognised that the governance process must be able to adapt to address the required
responses in the environmental and social contexts (Pahl-Wostl 2009). Governance is
associated with various actions and strategies that influence the adaptation process
(Dewulf and Termeer 2015). The process of governance focuses on making communities
more adaptable through considering them as a reliable party in the governance process
(Petrescu et al 2016). Accordingly, the definition of governance as used here in the research
refers to the process of planning and implementing adaptation strategies in the top-down
decision-making applied to deliver the adaptation or to address the adaptive capacities of
communities. Governance is understood as a broad concept that relates to intentional
actions or interventions by multiple actors to address a specific problem (Broto 2017).
It is argued that the complexity of addressing adaptation in the social context is associated
with the complexity of the governance issues. It has also become evident that many problems
are not primarily associated with the resource base but have to be attributed to governance
failures (Pahl-Wostl 2009). Neighbourhood governance, or rather the lack of it, could also be
the cause of many of the problems that exist in neighbourhoods (Somerville et al 2009).
There is also a pressing need to understand which tools assist resilient development best at
the neighbourhood level, and why (Stevenson and Petrescu 2016).
It is argued that governance is a key factor in the promotion of adaptive capacity for
communities, and this requires the adoption of actions/strategies. In order to promote
adaptive capacity, it should be said that governance strategies must themselves be able to
adapt in order to address the required responses in the natural and social environments
(Pahl-Wostl 2009).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
17
For this research, the focus is on local governance and its importance to adaptation is
particularly significant. The role of the local governance level is considered critical in
adaptation to CC (Agrawal 2008), and their role is considered to be important in addressing
the required regulations or in constraining them (Adger et al 2005). In particular,
understanding the decision-making process is considered a basic issue for building adaptive
capacity for communities and towards building their adaptive behaviour to challenging
situations (Grothmann and Patt 2005).
For the most part, when it comes to addressing adaptation, it is argued that the governance
needs to be constructed on the idea of working together, and be based on the cooperation
between different kinds of actors, such as national and local government, residents or local
communities and private partners such as developers and insurance companies (e.g.
Kooiman 1993; Rhodes 1996; Elander 2002). The role of those actors is essential in
influencing the adaptation process and the process of making decisions related to
adaptation. Thus, the governance process affects and is affected by the role of the actors
(Dewulf and Termeer 2015).
2.3.2 Community level
It was argued earlier that addressing adaptation in the social context requires that the local
communities themselves be capable of adapting to the variable impacts of CC and its
associated potential risks (Roberts 2010). Adaptation at the community level means being
able to maintain (and preferably improve) the current living standards in the face of the
expected impacts of CC and the intensity and frequency of severe events which may affect
people’s livelihoods (Van Aalst et al 2008).
The community can be defined as the group of people with varied characteristics that belong
to a geographical neighbourhood setting and who share mutual perspectives about their
community issues and environment (Green and Mercer 2001). The communities are
considered as unique and they have their own local needs, experiences, resources, and ideas
about the preparation for and protection against the various CC impacts and the potential
risks, respectively (Choguill 2008). Therefore, their inclusion in the adaptation process is an
indispensable issue. This would mean that they should be considered as a vital component
in building the adaptation strategies themselves. Regarding this, Rojas Blanco (2006, p 141)
demonstrated that: ‘Not only do local communities have the right to be informed about the
Chapter 2: Literature Review
18
ramifications of climate change, but they are also capable of generating solutions likely to
work at their level’.
When the local communities are able to adapt, then they should not only have the right to
be aware of CC and the potential impacts and risks, but also these communities should have
the ability to think and behave in adaptive ways (Van Aalst et al 2008). It is argued that when
local communities are engaged in the adaptation process, this will give them the ability to
cope with the various impacts and potential risks of climate change. Nevertheless, despite
the focus on the community level in the literature review, the adaptive capacity building
process is still in need of attention. In other words, the local communities should impact
decisions related to their neighbourhood, and this can be guaranteed through the role of the
various actors involved in the governance process in relation to the application of strategies
(Somerville et al 2009).
Addressing the local communities’ demands is important for securing or aiming to lessen
the gaps that relate to the final adaptation of their community. Here it is argued that when
the delivered context is not in parallel with the people’s priorities and essential needs, there
is significant potential for this adaptation process to be unsuccessful (Cannon and Muller-
Mahn 2010). Therefore, the inputs of the local community must be in tune with any
outcomes of the adaptation process, which requires the inclusion of the local community
in the decision-making process, known as ‘bottom-up’ planning, and is associated with the
inclusion of important aspects that could help in enabling the adaptation of the various
individuals or local communities to the potential impacts and risks (Wibly and Dessai 2010).
Such incorporation of the opinions of local people could help in determining the issues that
might cause hindrance to adaptation to CC (Pelling 2010). So, the communities’ adaptation
process must start from within the communities themselves.
It is also argued that the importance of the local communities, whether through the delivery
of adaptive capacities for better well-being, or/and through their inclusion in the decision-
making processes, should not be an overlooked issue when aiming for adaptation. The
adaptive capacity of communities is a very important issue, with an investigation needed
into the characteristics that make the community be able to act in adaptive ways. For
instance, Singh and Butler (2015) demonstrated that the adaptive capacity of communities
is important and is associated with their well-being and their feeling of belonging and
support of their environment.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
19
Accordingly, it is demonstrated that the role of governance and community are both essential
in enabling the planning and implementation strategies to address adaptive capacity in
relation to climate change. The understanding of both contexts demands not only knowing
what to adapt and who is adapting, but it requires realising how the adaptation is happening
as well (Berrang-Ford 2011).
Further, and importantly, there needs to be a focus on the actors that are involved in
addressing the adaptation, in relation to both the governance process level and local
communities. For the most part, adaptation processes involve the interconnection of various
agents or actors through their relationships with each other (Adger 2003). It is important to
investigate the interconnection, to know whether it enables or hinders adaptive capacity.
2.3.3 The Importance of Intermediaries in Bridging Gaps in the Social Context
Climate Change is a complex issue that requires complex responses to address adaptation.
This implies the understanding of thematic issues as well as the inclusion of different actors
in the decision-making process (Laukkonen et al 2009). It is argued that the decisions relating
to adaptation are made by various actors including individuals, groups within communities,
organisations and governments (Adger 2003).
Further, it is acknowledged that organisations that explicitly focus on this intermediary
function are considered as bridging organisations (Guston 1999, 2001; Cash 2001; Folke et al
2005), because they play an intermediary role between different levels, or scales, and
facilitate the actions of creating knowledge (Cash et al 2006). It is considered that
intermediaries are important actors when sustainability is the aim.
As Latour (2005) demonstrated, intermediaries, as participants, are important in setting the
function of passing information without transforming its meaning among the various actors.
Callon (1991) argued that intermediaries are individuals that make changes to the networks
that they are part of because of their role in transporting information, while Hayes and
Westrup (2014) suggested that they act as relays to others, but are still considered as highly
significant in shaping social relation. On the other hand, a social network adds information
on the relations of humans in a social and natural world which is left untouched by the
analysis, and ANT aims at accounting for the very essence of societies and natures (Latour
1996).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
20
Mainly, the function of intermediaries is in their connection among various participants or
actors, in order to promote openness in the process when communicating the various
opinions of the life-world (Fehren 2010). Therefore, it is acknowledged that intermediary
actors have been proposed as having key roles in encouraging the adoption of strategies and
changes towards more sustainable processes and developments (Kivimaa et al 2018). They
represent individuals/organisations that link various actors together (Pham et al 2010), and
as such they can range from councils, public bodies, associations, non-governmental
organisations, or consultancies (Bush et al 2017), and that for intermediaries, there is no
ambiguity since from knowing the inputs, the outputs are acknowledged as well (Latour
2007). A key feature of the theory is that actors are taken to include both human beings and
nonhuman actors such as technological artefacts.
It should be noted that in order to address the connections and changes needed in the
decision making through the actors’ participation process, it is important to consider their
roles as both intermediary actors and as mediators. The importance of considering mediators
and intermediaries is captured clearly by Latour, who explains that mediators have significant
functions that influence the development of projects through their ability to change and alter
the decisions and circumstances (Latour 2005).
As shown in Fig 2-1, it is important that these actors are able to take over an intermediary
function in community development. it is crucial for trust to be available between all parties,
with the administrative and decision makers on one hand and the local community on the
other (Fehren 2010). Therefore, their role should be acknowledged when aiming to
understand the process of building and promoting adaptive capacity in the social context.
Thus, the role of actors who are known as intermediaries can be either as intermediaries and
/ or also as mediators, depending on their main function in the project.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
21
Figure 2. 1: Neighbourhood management – areas of responsibility and organisation (example) (Fehren 2010)
When mediators are included, the causes or the inputs differ from the effects or the outputs
of the decision making. The term mediator is sometimes used instead of intermediary to
distinguish between the more neutral transference implied by being an intermediary and the
more unpredictable activities of a mediator (Latour 2005). As a result, mediators are also
important in development networks, but they differ from intermediaries, as mediators alter
whatever they engage with. As Latour (2005) puts it, with an intermediary, an input leads to
a known output, but with a mediator the outputs are unknowable in advance and will be
different under different circumstances. Latour argues that mediators are important in
actively transforming and shaping the process, and when compared with intermediaries,
mediators can bring about unpredictable outcomes as they actively interpret their interests
into the network with which they are engaged (Latour, 2005). The transferring of strategies
through mediators is always complex, involving socially, culturally and politically embedded
translation practices. This does not include translation with its literal meaning, and instead
indicates a set of processes of discussion, displacement, and alteration (Lendvai and Stubbs
Chapter 2: Literature Review
22
2006). Latour and Callon’s work on ‘translation’ takes the concept way beyond linguistics, in
an attempt to emphasise the dynamic nature of the social world, where meanings are
constantly transformed, translated and altered (Latour 2005). Translation takes place in
complex relations between the human actors and not human actants, where everyone and
everything has the important role as mediators to shape and transform discussions,
consultations, and interpretations according to their various projects (Latour 1987).
Therefore, it can be noticed that this concept is inseparable from with buildings, transforming
the relations of the projects (Lendvai and Stubbs 2008).
It should be said that the role of actors as mediators is an essential key in making the
transformation based on the arguments and the changes that are made through a specified
agency, which cannot be undertaken without differences and changes in the relationships
and decisions through the agency’s constituent actors (Latour 2007). By focusing on an
actors’ interactions with a concrete set of preferred individuals, the social network approach
is a promising theory to incorporate interactions in the agency role as a mediator party
(Carrasco et al 2008). Generally speaking, some actors are more active in seeking interactions
with their network, whereas others can be more passive, where this difference in the actors’
engagement with the social network can be termed as actors’ agency (Carrasco et al 2008).
Agency is about acting, and can be formulated as the willingness and ability to act. In a way,
it is not so much that acting entails agency but rather agency is a product of actions (Kinnunen
and Koskinen 2010). It has to do with the ways in which an agency is said to bring about
effect; which, in this respect, the criterion of strength is the degree to which an agency is
treated as a mediator that really makes a difference, and not as an intermediary that only
carries force or meaning without transforming anything (Bruni and Teli 2007).
Therefore, the role of the intermediaries as bonding organisations that pass information
between the two essential levels of governance and community, to address sustainability,
needs to be investigated with regard to their potential importance for promoting adaptation
at the neighbourhood scale. The associated actors need to be involved with the varied actors
at different scales, to address their importance as a bonding party and as a changing one that
can connect and change the development process, particularly when it comes to the actors
from the governance as a top-down process and the local community as a bottom-up
process. Once again, the major difference will be to decide whether the agency— once
provided with existence, figuration, and opponents—is treated as an intermediary or as a
mediator. In both cases, the outcome of the actor’s account will be deeply different (Latour
Chapter 2: Literature Review
23
2007). Latour argued that agencies are always presented in an account as doing something
that is making some difference to a state of affairs, involving transformation.
2.4 Resilience and Adaptive Capacity as Main Integrated Concepts to
Build Adaptation
It has been demonstrated that adaptation depends to a great extent on the adaptive capacity
or the adaptability of any context to CC (Grothmann and Patt 2005). The term ‘Adaptive
Capacity’ has proliferated in recent years through its use in the context of CC, mainly in
conjunction with the term ‘adaptation’ (Engle 2011). However, there are many definitions
and studies about adaptive capacity, as indicated in the literature studies. It is argued that
the influences of adaptive capacity are considered when assessing the potential for
adaptation to future CC (Vincent 2006).
The ‘Adaptive Capacity’ is defined as the ‘the potential or ability of a system, region, or
community to adapt to the effects or impacts of climate change’ (Smit and Pilifosova 2001,
p. 879). It is most commonly related to the ability of a system to evolve in order to
accommodate environmental risks or policy change and to expand the range of variability
with which it can cope (Kim and Chung 2013). The strategies for addressing adaptive capacity
are necessary, and these actions are applied to enhance the coping capacity of the systems
and its coping extent (Brooks and Adger 2005).
However, with the importance of the adaptive capacity, there is still a lack of clear measures
found in the literature for the promotion of adaptation in various contexts, particularly with
the community scale context. However, in the literature, resilience appeared to be a vital
approach for the management of change and for the promotion of adaptation. There is a
growing set of studies that rigorously explore how resilience is connected to other key
concepts which appear within the CC literature, particularly including sustainability and
adaptation (Leichenko 2011).
Resilience thinking (resilience theory) is one of the major conceptual approaches in
environment literature when it comes to dealing with change (Chapin et al 2009), at multiple
levels of an organisation, from local to global (Gunderson and Holling 2002). For instance, it
is argued that where addressing communities’ resilience, the ways that these communities
are being prepared requires enhancement at household and individual levels, to include all
members of the communities (Sharifi and Yamagata 2016, 2018).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
24
Resilience is considered as an essential basic concept for adapting to climate change, because
it explores the system’s flexibility, and in particular during times of change (Platts-Fowler and
Robinson 2013). Resilience is associated with the adjustment in its characteristics, to better
adapt to stress and potential harmful impacts (Pahl -Wostl 2007). This issue is very important
in the context of the increasing pace and magnitude of the impacts anticipated under CC.
Where there is no focus on addressing such impacts, this could expose historic planning and
management practices to potential risks, and as result, could cause a lack of security for
people and their built environment (Bierbaum et al 2013).
It is acknowledged that resilience has become a central concept in delivering effective
adaptation to CC and building adaptive capacity in various contexts. However, despite the
abundance of research on resilience, there is still no single, widely accepted definition for it
(Sharifi and Yamagata 2014). Most definitions of resilience are linked to the ability to prepare
for CC through characteristics or strategies. Resilience is, however, not a new concept.
Indeed, in 1973 Holling argued that resilience is connected with the various systems’ abilities
to withstand perturbations or shocks. As a concept it represents a profound shift in
traditional perspectives, which attempts to promote changes in systems towards sustaining
and enhancing their capacity to adapt to uncertainty (Adger et al 2005).
The application of resilience has received increased attention in current literature. A common
viewpoint put forward raises the importance of addressing resilience as a central matter,
saying that:
The need to account for resilience in a world of transformations is a perspective that
should become embedded in strategies and policy of the World Summit on
Sustainable Development and recognized in the next phases for implementation of
Agenda 21 (Folke et al 2002, p 440).
Therefore, both resilience and adaptive capacity are strongly linked. This agrees with the
demonstration of Cutter et al (2008), describing resilience as a concept that is interconnected
with provision of characteristics or strategies that exist at the core of the adaptive capacity
process. There is a strong relationship between the two concepts.
As Folke et al (2002) demonstrated, resilience is related to the degree to which the system
can build capacity for adaptation and as such, there is a strong relation between the two
Chapter 2: Literature Review
25
concepts. Engle (2011) indicated that the greater the adaptive capacity within a system, the
more the likelihood that the system will be resilient in the face of Climate Change.
While the literature provides examples of strategies that are construed to build resilience,
there is no clear connection between the definition of resilience and the required actions or
characteristics that enable building and evaluating resilience (Tyler and Moench 2012). In
other words, more focus is needed to demonstrate the process of building resilience to
promote adaptive capacity towards climate change, or vice versa. In the literature, however,
this relationship has been differently indicated, where analysis of adaptive capacity has been
related to the development of robust strategies for adaptation in addressing the flexibility of
strategies that systems adopt towards the changing condition (Engle 2011; Krasny and Tidball
2009; Fleischhauer 2008). Improvement strategies and methods in Adaptive Capacity are
required in order to promote the adoption of resilience (Adger et al 2011).
Further, for the most part, resilience studies have linked adaptive capacity with ideas such as
governance and institutions, and while it has also been evaluated in relation to physical
assets and disaster contexts by Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete (2011) and Bahadur et al
(2010), the social context is typically the focus. For example, studies have associated
resilience with communities and understanding their resilience through bonding with the
physical resources and management (Hughes 2003; Graugaard 2012; Engle et al 2014;
Hallegatte and Engle 2019).
Therefore, as resilience is important to enable adaptive capacity towards climate change, this
research should be informed by examples from the literature of the strategies and actions
that integrate both resilience and adaptive capacity. Resilience and adaptive capacity are
thus found to be strongly related, where both can build and promote adaptation to climate
change through strategies or characteristics that are applied to advance adaptation. These
are areas in need of further exploration. In this research, it is argued that the integration of
both approaches can be effective in developing a framework that is appropriate for the
investigation of adaptation.
2.4.1 The importance of Adaptive Governance & Resilience in Governance
and Community Levels
It has been demonstrated earlier that the importance of governance and community levels
and their connection through actors in promoting adaptation to climate change should be
Chapter 2: Literature Review
26
acknowledged. Therefore, the application of approaches that aim to promote adaptation in
these three aspects is essential.
Governance is considered important in promoting adaptive capacity as it is an example of a
driving force of adaptive capacity (Vincent 2007). Addressing effective strategies and
implementation routes for adaptation means the utilisation of various strategies to
implement and enhance the governance process and their outcomes. The adoption of
adaptation strategies in governance or, as it is called in the literature, ‘Adaptive Governance’,
is essential in addressing the building of a system's adaptive capacity (Folke et al 2005).
Adaptive governance is considered to provide a vehicle for putting resilience theory into
practice (Garmestani 2013). Therefore, adopting adaptive governance can be regarded as an
important factor in promoting resilience.
However, there are still many gaps in the literature, regarding designing governance
processes and strategies to build resilience, particularly in the context of CC impacts and
disasters, as well as the implementation of adaptation strategies in the decision-making
context (Djalante et al 2011; Cutter 2016). This includes determining who the key actors are,
what their roles are in developing neighbourhood strategies, their collaboration experiences,
project outcomes and the lessons to be learnt from these (Stevenson and Petrescu 2016).
The main focus on adaptive governance is associated with the ways developed by the various
institutions to address the community’s needs and priorities, in order for these communities
to be able to adapt along with their changing environment.
As illustrated earlier, both the governance and community levels are important when
building resilience and adaptive capacity to CC. Therefore, it is important to build adaptive
governance, which is essential for advancing community resiliency and adaptation. In order
to enable adaptation to CC governance to improve community development, a focus on
resilience is essential (Engle et al 2014). Therefore, examination of existing literature on both
adaptive governance and resilient communities is essential to explore the main
characteristics that enable their success. However, they should be addressed together. In
other words, what makes a community resilient as a delivered outcome, through the
adaptive governance process actions/characteristics, needs to be investigated in both
contexts.
In existing literature, the focus on resilience at the community level is being increased. It is
argued that community resilience requires that local communities themselves be capable of
Chapter 2: Literature Review
27
adapting to the variable impacts of CC and its associated potential risks (Roberts 2010). It is
recognised that resilience arises from interactive processes across multiple levels of
functioning, including social interactions with the local communities (Brown and Westaway
2011). Therefore, community resilience is significant for building the applied strategies in
resilience towards adaptation, in particular, in neighbourhoods (Eisenman et al 2016). The
set of ideas from the emerging community resilience literature examining community health
and development can help develop an enriched and integrated concept of community
resilience, and inform new research directions and practice (Berkes and Ross 2013). In the
literature, the characteristics or strategies that promote community resilience are called
community resilience factors.
However, in order to address adaptive capacity and resilience it is important to understand
the different capability of the various actors and interventions that exist to promote
adaptation and to reduce the adverse impacts of CC (Vincent, 2007), in both governance and
community. It should be said that investigating the resilience of any system cannot be
addressed without considering the interconnection among the involved actors.
Therefore, it is necessary to consider the integration of other factors of the adaptive
governance and the role of the intermediaries, as representatives for sustainable
development targets.
The interaction among the actors or networks is an essential matter that should be part of
the resilience and the adaptation process (Walker et al 2004). It is argued that the actions of
actors/organisations influence resilience, either intentionally or unintentionally (Walker et al
2008). It is considered that addressing resilience across human development is an important
aim or target to be approached by these networks/organisations that are called
‘intermediaries’ in order to understand the environmental changes (Brown and Westaway
2011). Therefore, it seems crucial to investigate the roles and aspects associated with the
intermediaries.
As sustainability is important in the context of CC adaptation, it is vital to explore the
integration of the intermediaries’ theoretical approach with both the adaptive governance
and resilience community factors and then extract the characteristics that lay at the basis of
each approach. Accordingly, in order to promote social adaptation to CC, the integration of
resilience, adaptive capacity in the governance and community levels is necessary, in addition
to the integration of the actors that enable the process of sustainability and adaptation
strategies to be achieved. The next sections present the three approaches that are indicated
Chapter 2: Literature Review
28
in the literature in relation to governance, community and intermediaries and facilitating
adaptation processes. The definitions of each approach and their main themes are presented
and discussed.
2.4.1.1 Theory one: Adaptive Governance
Adaptive governance is a form of governance that incorporates formal institutions, informal
groups/networks, and individuals at multiple scales for the purposes of collaborative
environmental management (Folke et al 2005).
Adaptive governance refers to the evolution of rules and norms that better promote
the satisfaction of underlying human needs and preferences given changes in
understanding, objectives, and the social, economic and environmental context
(Hatfield-Dodds et al 2007, P4).
Important themes are indicated in the literature for promoting adaptive governance (Folke
et al 2005) as follows:
• Extended collaboration process and support for the inclusion of multiple parties or
actors in the process of adaptation of governance;
• Build knowledge and understanding of the actions associated with adaptation
strategies and the feedback;
• Continuous monitoring and evaluation to enhance adaptive responses, acknowledging
the inherent uncertainty in complex systems;
Develop capacities when dealing with the CC and their impacts.
Climate information and adaptation strategies are adopted and used in decision-making
throughout the governance system. It is essential to organise plans that aim to manage
adaptation for both communities and the built environment (Sharifi and Yamagata 2016).
Further, Garmestani (2013) illustrates that adaptive governance requires the capacity to
learn to manage for resilience.
It is important in the context of governance, in relation to the theme of engagement and
collaboration, to think of the relationship between the actors’ roles and their collaboration
with the planning and implementation of effective strategies in association with CC and
adaptation. There should be cooperation between the local actors and the institutions and
decision-makers to coordinate the adaptation polices and strategies adopted by both the
former and latter parties (Agrawal 2008). In this regard, understanding the roles and
Chapter 2: Literature Review
29
responsibilities of the various actors could be of significance when it comes to the realisation
of the relevant levels of the strategies.
For this research, the four themes indicated by Folke et al (2005) and in the wider literature
represent the theoretical basis for the adaptive governance process that is adopted for
building and evaluating adaptive capacity and resilience. These themes actually form the
principles upon which Folke builds a theory of adaptive governance and are essential for
building adaptive governance in various communities, where building knowledge and
awareness of the environmental changes are important for learning and adapting (Lebel et
al 2006). This requires extensive collaboration between actors from various institutions.
Nevertheless, the governance structures and their roles are still in need of further
clarification in the CC context (Dewulf and Termeer 2015), and; in particular regarding the
level of action taken by local government and national policies (Vignola et al 2009; Roberts
2010), as well as in relation to focusing on decision-making processes and including
policymaking and planning (Westman 2017).
Then, continuous monitoring and evaluation to enhance adaptive responses are vital
components in addressing successful governance processes as indicated by Folke et al (2005),
through access to reliable information (Cundill and Fabricius 2010). Finally, the focus is on
developing possible actions in response to environmental change linked with the longer-term
well-being of the community (Chaskin 2001; Brown and Westaway 2011) and to strengthen
the capacity of societies to manage resilience (Lebel et al 2006). Well-being is a process as
well as an outcome, part of which is associated with having a good life and material welfare
and living standards (Brownand and Westaway 2011). These living standards are
irreplaceable factors in resilient neighbourhoods
Table 2.1: Themesof Adaptive Governance theoretical approach
Adaptive Governance theoretical approach
Themes Sources
AG-1: Extended collaboration process
AG-2: Build knowledge and understanding
AG-3: Continuous monitoring and
evaluation
AG-4: Develop capacities with CC impacts
Folke et al 2005, Lebel et al 2006, Agrawal
2008, Cundill and Fabricius 2010, Garmestani
2013, Dewulf and Termeer 2015, Sharifi and
Yamagata 2016, Westman 2017
Chapter 2: Literature Review
30
2.4.1.2 Theory two: Resilient Communities
It is acknowledged that in order to promote adaptation to CC, it is vital to integrate
preparation strategies within targets for sustainability development (Engle et al 2014). The
understanding of the relationship between the performance of sustainability tools and
resilience potentials for communities is still a very limited issue. The resilience of groups and
communities has gained the attention of researchers across academic literature studies, yet
the scale of analysis for much of the existing assessments has focused on the city level or
higher (Kowk et al 2016).
A community’s resilience is often understood as the capacity of individuals or groups within
a community to work together toward a communal objective, and a community with
individuals who are personally resilient in the face of CC impacts is likely to be resilient as a
community as well (Berkes and Ross 2013). This requires understanding of whom the
community consists of and then the role of local communities and their connection with the
organisation responsible for adaptation.
There is an increasing need to evaluate the underlying drivers of community resilience (Kowk
et al 2016). At the community level, essential factors in the promotion of resilience in
communities are effective engagement, knowledge, adaptive behaviour and well-being, as
indicated in the literature studies by Tompkins and Adger (2004), Chaskin (2008), Chandra et
al (2011), Poortinga et al (2012), Platts-Fowler and Robinson (2013), Singh and Butler 2015,
Apostolopoulos et al 2018.
The community’s preparations to adapt are related to their feeling of providing a supportive
environment and having better well-being in their neighbourhood, where the constituent
community individuals need to feel that they live in a neighbourhood where a healthy and
supportive environment exists, to make them better prepared for the impacts of CC (Singh
and Butler 2015). It is acknowledged that there is a need to develop a strong and integrated
concept of community resilience, and inform new research directions and practice regarding
well-being and health that facilitate community interactions with the physical adaptive
capacity of the built environment (Kamoto et al 2013; Paton and Johnston 2017).
Platts-Fowler and Robinson (2013) argued that in order for communities to become able to
adapt and be resilient, there are themes that need to be addressed, such as the following:
Chapter 2: Literature Review
31
Nature of Community: This includes whether there is a shared notion of belonging and
identity, regarding the shared notions including, belonging and identity, engagement,
participation, and interests (Platts-Fowler and Robinson 2013) and engagement at the
community level, including a sense of cohesiveness and neighbourhood involvement or
integration (Chandra et al 2011).
Community adaptive behaviour towards their facilities and built environment: Changes in
behaviour to promote uptake of adaptive behaviour are not limited to the role of the
governments only, but also involve the communities’ individuals, through their actions to
address responsible adaptive behaviour for resource management (Tompkins and Adger
2004). Under the local context, individual-level preparedness and ability to adapt are also
important (Chandra et al 2011), including natural and built resources, services, amenities and
facilities, community sector infrastructure and opportunities for engagement and voice, and
physical environment, such as facilities and amenities and service provision (Poortinga et al
2012;Platts-Fowler and Robinson 2013 ;Paton and Johnston 2017).
Community well-being: Community health and access to high-quality health services (Platts-
Fowler and Robinson 2013; Chandra et al 2011; Pecl et al 2017; Paton and Johnston 2017).
Well-being is important for addressing community resilience, and linked to human capacity
(Chaskin 2008), and in creating healthy individuals able to adapt (Choguill 2008).
The definitions included in the literature are more likely to have referred to well-being at the
individual level or at the national level but are still ambiguous when explaining well-being at
the collective level of a community (McCrea et al 2014). Therefore, this issue is still in need
of exploration, particularly in relation to resilience. Certain limitations are indicated when it
comes to the exploration of links existing between well-being and resilience as a framework
(Armitage et al 2012).
Table 2.2: Themes of Resilient Communities theoretical approach
Resilient Communities theoretical approach
Themes Sources
RC-1: Nature of Community
RC-2: Community adaptive behaviour
towards their facilities and built
environment
RC-3: Community well-being
Tompkins and Adger 2004, Chaskin 2008,
Choguill 2008, Chandra et al 2011, Poortinga
et al 2012, Platts-Fowler and Robinson 2013,
Singh and Butler 2015, Pecl et al 2017, Paton
and Johnston 2017, Apostolopoulos et al
2018.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
32
2.4.1.3 Theory three: Intermediaries
It is acknowledged that the term ‘intermediary’ comes from Actor Network Theory, in
association with the concept of transportation of the meaning without transforming it, in
which the definition of the inputs is sufficient to define the outputs (Latour 2005). It is also
acknowledged that, as demonstrated in ANT, the role of intermediaries can be extended to
constitute the role of mediator as well. Moss (2009) demonstrated that this latter role is
important and relates to changing attitudes, building trust, networking actors and influencing
policy priorities. Their roles range from advisory groups and information campaigns
examining resource use or pollution, to training and educational programmes for targeted
consumer groups (Moss 2009). Also, they involve creation and facilitation of new networks,
configuring and aligning interests and identification by management of human resource
needs in relation to their skills and behaviour (Bird and Barnes 2014).
To understand the role of intermediaries as both intermediaries and mediators, these two
roles are explained below.
• Intermediary's Role in Facilitating Knowledge Transfer
It is seen that the ability to shape relationships within the networks of planning regulation
have been shown to depend on the role of planning documents as intermediaries and the
potential they offer to govern at a distance (Rydin 2012). It is argued that intermediaries can
play a role in supporting and enabling the development processes and policy (Bush et al
2017). and through enabling the community to effectively participate in community
development (Singh and Butler 2015).
In order to be able to take over an intermediary function in community development, it is
crucial for trust to be present between all parties, with the administrative and decision
makers on one hand and the local community on the other (Fehren 2010). Their role, as
demonstrated according to Latour theory, is important in passing on information to many
actors in the development and decision-making processes. Their role in facilitating dialogue
to bridge the gaps among the actors is important (Moss et al 2009). One stance is that
consultants act as intermediaries, where their primary purpose is to provide expertise to
implement specific functions without longer-term commitments (Hayes and Westrup 2014).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
33
As Hinkel et al (2009) argued, the communication process among the actors is more
important than the information they share, regarding CC. However, that does not mean that
the information is not crucial for adaptation. On the contrary, any limitation in the
information is considered an important factor that influences adaptation and the formulation
of decisions by the various actors. It is also acknowledged that many of the intermediaries
studied operations across different levels of social organisation, from the household level to
the region level and beyond (Moss et al 2009). As Gustedt (2000) has argued, intermediaries
in the field of regional development can be distinguished not only by their organisational
form but also in terms of their functions including mediating, informing, connecting and
coordinating, and the stage of their development.
• Mediator's Role in Making Changes
The term "mediator" refers to the course of actions that is overtaken by the agencies, but it
is sometimes used instead of intermediary to distinguish between the more neutral trans-
ference implied by being an and the more unpredictable activities of a mediator (Latour
2005).
A mediator role is important, as it constitutes, recreates and modifies social relationships
(Rydin 2006). Mediators are important in shaping the development process and the
outcomes of the development (Latour 2005). For instance, consultants are considered
valuable mediators with important roles in creating new ways or methods to do things
related to the development process and social relationships, as well as re-shaping the
development process and, when possible, enhancing the delivery of the outcome (Hayes and
Westrup 2014).
Therefore, the role of intermediaries as mediators, as Moss et al (2009) illustrate, is
important in their provision of guidance, lessening gaps, and making enhancements through
interactions among various actors. Therefore, intermediaries have important roles in
transferring information without changing it, whereas when the intermediaries are acting as
mediators, their roles constitute changing and modifying the information, which as a result
makes the outcome changeable and unpredictable (Latour 2005: 37-42). For instance, in
universities, the role of mediators is important through the mediation between the various
actors, involving recreating and modifying social relationships (Yaneva 2009).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
34
Accordingly, the role of intermediaries is not very tangible when compared with the role of
mediators, in which the latter have the role of mediating between the people who have
formal roles and those with informal roles (Jones et al 2016). This is because the role of
intermediaries is concerned with passing information and the process of maintaining
networks, which are essentially created by mediators. Thus, mediators are important
participants in setting plans and establishing the conditions needed in the various
development processes. For example, this is seen in association with the application of the
technological decisions and plans, where the role of intermediaries is related primarily to
changing attitudes, building trust, networking stakeholders, influencing policy priorities, or
bridging discourses (Moss et al 2009).
2009).
Table 2.3: Themes of Adaptive Governance theoretical approach
Adaptive Governance theoretical approach
Themes Sources
I-1: Intermediary role in facilitating
knowledge
I-2: Mediator role in making changes
Gustedt 2000, Latour 2005, Yaneva 2009,
Moss et al 2009, Fehren 2010, Rydin 2012,
Bird and Barnes 2014, Hayes and Westrup
2014, Jones et al 2016, Bush et al 2017
These three approaches and their related themes are important in the promotion of
adaptation to CC in the social context. There is, however, a need to investigate each theme
and what it entails, in theory and practice, to influence social adaptation to CC. These three
theoretical approaches and the themes are integrated to promote social adaptation to CC at
the neighbourhood scale, as figure (2.2) shows.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
35
Figure 2. 2 the Integrated Approach to promote social adaptation to CC at the neighbourhood scale
Sustainability and building adaptation at the social context
Governance Level
Community level
Intermediaries Levels
Theory _1: Adaptive Governance
Why & How?
Theory _2: Resilient Communities
Extended collaboration
process
Build knowledge and
understanding
Continuous Monitoring &
Evaluation
Develop capacities when
dealing with CC
To investigate the preparation at the
governance level (Folke et al 2005)
To investigate preparation
characteristics for community resilience
(Platts-Fowler and Robinson 2013) & others
To investigate the role of Intermediaries/mediators in communication and change (Latour 2005; Yaneva 2009;
Moss 2009, Barnes 2014 ;Jones et al 2016),..etc.
Theory _3: Intermediaries
Nature of community
Sense of Belonging
Interaction with physical
built
environment/facilities
Well-being
Intermediaries’ role
in facilitating
knowledge transfer
Mediators’ role to
make the change
Sustainability as the overall context that connects to these approaches
Identify and evaluate the ‘characteristics ’that enable building
adaptation in the social context
Chapter 2: Literature Review
36
2.5 The Identification of Characteristics for the Three Theoretical
Approaches to Promote Adaptation
As mentioned earlier, the themes that enable adaptation in the social context are based on
the integration of the three theories of Adaptive Governance (AG), Resilient Community (RC)
& Intermediaries (I). This section of the chapter will consider their operational contents,
named as ‘characteristics’, in order to enable the investigation of social adaptation in this
research.
It is argued that resilience characteristics are needed for the adaptation process, acting as
operational criteria to be adopted in the policy and decision-making actions of the
development process (Wardekker et al 2010). However, despite the importance of resilience,
there is no clear connection between the definition, or inherent qualities, of resilience and
the required action (Tyler and Moench 2012). It is also crucial to consider adaptive capacity
as an approach for addressing adaptation to CC through the initial planning and the delivery
of the outcomes in the development process. Also, for effective preparation and response to
CC, continuous assessment of the strategies or actions that address resilience is required (Ebi
and Semenza 2008). This process of evaluating adaptive capacity is important and it should
lead to the use of measurement approaches or methods that are clear and feasible for the
users (Williamson et al 2012). In the next section, the characteristics of the three theoretical
approaches and their themes are presented.
It should be said that for the demonstration of the characteristics in this chapter, water is
selected as the main sector that is directly influenced by CC impacts. Water was selected as
the main sector in order to illustrate the characteristics that are being explored in a
consistent manner regarding the investigated theories. The other sectors such as energy,
transportation etc are as important as water, but are not considered here, because the main
focus is not on comparing these sectors, and instead the aim is to demonstrate the main
characteristics that influence CC adaptation in the governance and the social context.
However, water is very important for the context of CC adaptation. It is acknowledged that
the greatest climate change impacts are likely to be felt in the water sector (Elala 2011).
These impacts are particularly notable when it comes to the effects of temperature and
precipitation (Bates et al 2008, Hanjra and Qureshi 2010) from higher temperatures,
reduction of snow cover, rise in sea level, more tropical storms and heavy rains, and frequent
Chapter 2: Literature Review
37
summer heat waves and droughts. CC brings the major challenges and impacts of climate
change on water availability and quality, and will likely threaten sustainability and increase
risk for existing social and ecological systems (Engle and Lemos 2010).
2.5.1 Adaptive Governance Theoretical Approach
Four themes are considered important to this approach, as discussed below.
AG-1: Extended Collaboration Process
It is acknowledged that adaptation research has focused on the provision of guidance for
decision-making by identifying comprehensive principles for governance and institutional
design for successful adaptation (Oberlack 2017). It is argued that building adaptive
governance that feeds adaptive management2 processes requires the sharing of power and
responsibility between user groups or communities, and government agencies and
nongovernmental organisations that exist and operate as social networks, often in an ad hoc
and flexible manner (Boyd and Juhola 2015). Such an extended collaboration process is
assumed to have a higher adaptive capacity and to be less vulnerable to disturbance (Pahl-
Wostl 2009).
Wide-ranging participation and multi-level interactions among the various participants can
positively contribute to the generation of physical strategies needed for the management
process. Such multi-level interactions across the various administrations/organisations are
vital characteristics of environmental governance regimes (Pahl-Wostl 2009). In contrast,
disconnected relationships among actors impede openness and the extent to which various
actors are able to express their true ideas and concerns (Gargiulo and Benassi 2000).
Collective decisions implement effective management through extending the involvement of
the actors and through combining bottom-up and top-down governance approaches for both
formal and informal situations (Pahl-Wostl et al 2007). These demand attention towards the
multiple actors that interact in a direct way or through mixed methods in governance,
including the business sector, public–private partnerships, civil society organizations and
2Adaptive Management is a method mainly associated with the conservation of resources, and relies on making learning a priority in the stewardship. It is grounded in the basis that humans do not know enough to manage their environment or the ecosystem. However, Adaptive Management is still by far associated with more theoretical concepts than practical implemented strategies, particularly regarding the development of knowledge and learning required for the behaviour of humans to adapt with their environment (Lee 1999).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
38
community groups, and other various networks of actors who routinely change urban
trajectories (Broto 2017).
Governance studies suggest that the involvement of poor and marginalised groups in
decision-making, monitoring and evaluation is a key characteristic of a city intent on
improving the conditions for those living in informal settlements or living in exposed
locations (Tanner et al 2009). The role of local institutions in adaptation to CC is therefore
very important and is associated with the extent to which social groups are capable of
accessing resources (Agrawal 2008). Regarding this, Ivey et al (2004) argued that effective
management systems within institutional organisations (in terms of transparent, solid and
thorough roles and duties of local governmental organisations) influence the extent to which
suitable adaptation strategies are available to the decision-makers based on their roles and
duties, as well as the way that the local community influences adaptation strategies, how
the nature of the community is understood and how the local water managers and
developers understand the community priorities, and the extent to which these managers
consider the community as a legal part of decision-making. Despite this, the importance of
government in advancing adaptation decisions must be seen in the context of face-to-face
local interactions of community, the latter not being a substitute for effective government,
but rather a complement (Bowles and Gintis 2002).
The role of specific parties in the preparation of this collaborative process, the role of
policy/administrative parties in inviting the various actors and with the provision of
structured scenarios for the purposes of linking with the active adaptation process is a
substantial matter (Folke et al 2002). For example, in water management, it is acknowledged
that despite the importance of the role of the bottom-up governance approach towards
adaptive water management, the role of the authority must be central, in order to support
and set the requirements for the participatory process. This will also provide routes and
methods for local individuals, organisations and professionals to access relevant information
and knowledge. This is particularly true in the context of complicated and diverse
development, for instance river basins (Huntjens et al 2011). Therefore, the role of
institutions is essential in the adaptation process and it is acknowledged that the institutional
barriers are opposite actions of adaptation criteria associated with specific properties of
institutions (Oberlack 2017).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
39
Accordingly, based on the literature, Table 2-4 shows the two main characteristics of this
theory.
Table 2.4: Characteristics to enable AG-1: Extended Collaboration process
AG-1: Extended Collaboration Process
Characteristics Source
C.1 Broad decentralisation of decisions for
effective management
Pahl-Wostl et al 2007, Boyd and Juhola
2015, Lund 2015, Broto 2017
C.2 Local institutional support Ivey et al 2004, Folke et al 2005, Pahl-
Wostl 2009, Oberlack 2017
AG-2: Build Knowledge and Understanding
It is recognised that responses to CC require not only local knowledge awareness but also a
translation of information into a learning process (Schmitt 2010). Without this awareness,
any proposed adaptation scheme may face resistance. The knowledge level is associated with
the availability of climate information and the manner by which scientists and relevant
professionals provide climate information and data.
For example, increased knowledge of water resource management through the wider
collaboration process is a positive change, and is closely associated with an increase in social
learning among the varied actors. This has been based on the incorporation of the knowledge
from various disciplines (Medema et al 2008) and will be useful in generating new ideas and
alternatives for water policies and strategies. The availability of methods for evaluating and
comparing the alternatives will deliver better results for management (Pahl-Wostl 2006). This
will also lead to an increased possibility of selecting the appropriate scenario under any
condition and decreasing the ambiguity of the physical, social or integrated systems.
The inclusion of a wide range of professionals is highly important in providing credible,
scientific and intelligent governance processes, polices and adaptation targets (Georgakakos
et al 2012). Furthermore, it is important that the availability, quality and accessibility of data
on the physical actions to adapt to CC impacts and potential risks must itself be appropriate
for all of the various actors (Ivey et al 2004). For instance, hydrologists can play an important
role in increasing awareness through discussions with students, business groups,
Chapter 2: Literature Review
40
corporations and communities, conferences as well as other public awareness raising actions,
in order to minimise the impacts of CC on water resources (Misra 2014).
The adaptation in governance strategies should constitute the production of a clear
understanding of previous impacts and future predicted impacts as well (Medema et al
2008). This knowledge-building process requires the development of shared ways of
communication among the various professionals as a key matter, including approaches to
enable the incorporation of marginalised people into the management or decision-making
process, to address equality and enable the necessary power shift (Ensor and Harvey 2015).
Thus, this would enable different groups to learn and increase their awareness of their
biophysical environment and the complexity of social interactions. This does not imply that
a consensus must be achieved, but what is required is the development of a minimum level
of trust and openness as a basis for transparent and efficient communication.
It is argued that when participants realise and accept each other’s roles and responsibilities,
and are ready to direct their endeavours to responsible agencies, the possibilities for
functional responses and actions are improved (Ivey et al 2004). It is acknowledged that the
complex problems that are associated with CC require learning as a main strategy (Ensor and
Harvey 2015). The capacity for learning has long been understood as an integral part of
resilience thinking, and the adaptive capacity that is being addressed here also requires that
social learning be established in the social networks among the participating actors
(Tschakert and Dietrich 2010). Addressing social learning among various actors through the
sharing of knowledge is a vital issue to be addressed through the various actors’
incorporation and not a single party. Social learning, in river basin management, for example,
needs to develop and sustain the capacity of different authorities, experts, and local
communities to address the long-term management process and the adaptive capacity for
the social-ecological system as a whole (Pahl-Wostl et al 2007). Further, social learning 3
should be an organised process and not randomised, even with the multi-organisational style
that adaptive governance can take (Medema et al 2008).
‘The process of becoming more able to adapt can itself be a learning process, if we consider
on-going adaptation to be part of the everyday behaviour of the system in question’ (Peling
and High 2005, P7). This happens where system understanding, action, and evaluation are
3Social Learning refers to sustained, i.e. decade-long, processes of attitudinal and behavioural change by individuals in social environments through interaction and deliberation.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
41
updated and refined every time new information exists (Tschakert and Dietrich 2010).
Without a doubt, committing to a learning process that aims to enhance anticipatory and
adaptive capacity requires knowledge to be accessible for those who need it most, through
carefully designed yet flexible, iterative learning-reflection that is tailored to real day-to-day
risks, and allows for experimentation in practice and offers tangible and short-term results
(Tschakert and Dietrich 2010).
Furthermore, improved knowledge of the nature and pace of CC and its impacts can be useful
for enabling communities to understand their points of weakness and help them to identify
appropriate responses to prevent future impacts, such as water shortages in the context of
the water system. However, understanding local water systems and users, fostering local
partnerships, identifying alternative pathways for response, and establishing transparent
institutional arrangements at lower- and upper-tier levels will be critical in translating
knowledge into action in local communities (Ivey et al 2004). Therefore, it is important that
local knowledge from local communities is integrated in order to provide access to
information. It is acknowledged that sufficient knowledge and access to relevant information
is essential for actors that are participating in the decision-making processes of development
(Brugnach 2017).
Engaging with communities is a central part of good governance because this can help to
address certain problems that cannot be handled either by individuals acting alone or by
markets and governments. It is argued that a pressing need exists to engage with the diversity
of everyday lives. Whether differences in values, assumptions and views are visible or hidden,
they will, ultimately, come to bear on the effectiveness and fairness of climate change
responses (Romero-Lankao et al 2018). Thus, addressing the knowledge of local communities
and their role in decision-making is highly recommended, but demands understanding the
social relationships among the communities themselves and how this affects the level of
knowledge and information production. On building adaptation, ‘It requires strengthening
the role of local community, and that the national policymakers empower local and
indigenous communities to facilitate adaptation processes through taking the local
traditional knowledge into consideration’ (Vignola et al 2009, P5). It is acknowledged that the
participation of local communities in decisions that are associated with adaptation to CC is
important to confirm that the needed strategies are implemented through enforcing the role
of communities, as the latter will have a better position in their community and their
environment, and be more influential and supportive to the adaptation process (Brugnach
2017).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
42
Therefore, incorporating local communities can be useful in ensuring that their opinions and
needs are integrated and communicated in order to deliver better outcomes for them.
Adopting communities-based adaptation is a statement of how local development contexts
are important in the experience of risk, and a demonstration of how participatory techniques
and deliberation of different sources of knowledge can lead to more successful outcomes
(Forsyth 2013). This involves the inclusion of information or knowledge of the local
community in the decision-making, which can be considered a very worthwhile intention for
CC adaptation (Aalst et al 2008). Participation in the development process by indigenous
people in particular is important in providing development of indicators for CC, as the focus
on the experts’ knowledge regarding these problems will mean knowledge about CC
problems would be lacking (Brugnach 2017).
Since the adaptation process at the urban level is highly dependent on and affected by the
cooperative act and behaviour between the community individuals and the administrative
level, this leads to various opinions and options resulting within these local collaboration
process (Tanner et al 2009).
Accordingly, based on the literature, Table 2-5 shows the three main characteristics for this
theme.
Table 2.5: Characteristics to enable AG-2: Build knowledge and understanding
AG-2: Build Knowledge and Understanding
Characteristics Source
C.3 Focus/incorporation of information
and understanding the impacts of CC &
potential risks
Folke et al 2002, Bowles and Gintis 2002,
Ivey et al 2004, Medema et al 2008, Misra
2014
C.4 Shared/participatory ways of
knowledge
Pahl-Wostl et al 2007, Tschakert and
Dietrich 2010, Forsyth 2013, Ensor and
Harvey 2015
C.5 Consider the physical performance of
facilities regarding the water strategies
Ivey et al 2004, Pahl-Wostl et al 2007,
Medema et al 2008, Brugnach 2017
AG-3: Continuous Monitoring and Evaluation
Continuously monitoring and evaluating the outcomes and linking them with potential goals
(Plummer et al 2012) should be the approach adopted for components of any context that
aim to address adaptation. It is acknowledged that monitoring and feedback are considered
as key characteristics to be considered when addressing the improvement of lives of
communities under any potential risk or impact (Tanner et al 2009). However, addressing the
Chapter 2: Literature Review
43
monitoring of governance to address adaptive capacity is a particularly challenging matter.
Monitoring is an important method in community or human studies, and can vary in focus,
method or technique (Conrad and Hilchey 2011).
For the linkage among the fields of ecological knowledge, for instance, into adaptive
governance practices, it is acknowledged that successful management is characterised by
continuous testing and monitoring to enhance adaptive responses, acknowledging the
uncertainty inherent in complex systems. In order to achieve sustainability, it is vital to
incorporate climate risk and disaster management into the local development policies,
allowing adaptation to these risks to be addressed (Uitto and Shaw 2006).
It is argued that risk indicators need to be rooted and linked more with social consultation,
engagement and management (Nkhata and Breen 2010). When addressing adaptive
management, continuous monitoring, evaluation and adjustment of policies are needed
(Kallis et al 2009). Adaptive governance also addresses this. The evaluation of the outcome
of an applied strategy or a decision in the development process is essential for adapting the
components and their interaction to various scenarios. However, there is still a challenge in
that the governance domain typically consists of national policies that negatively constrain
local policies, associated with integrating the short-term solutions into long-term problems
(Cash et al 2006). Linking feedback with the performance of the various systems under CC
impacts or potential risks is an essential issue. From linking the outcome of these feedbacks
loops with performance, whether positive or negative, the system will be transformed into a
new condition (Tomlinson et al 2011).
For example, in terms of addressing the adaptation of water, Kiparsky and Gleick (2003)
argued that designing local storm water control and drainage facilities is dependent on the
monitoring and updating of information regarding rainfall characteristics that relate to depth,
duration and frequency, and to connecting this information with the performance and
operation of the water system, under various CC impacts. The evaluation process as part of
the continuous monitoring programmes is important under various risk scenarios.
Fernandez-Gimenez et al (2008) demonstrated that collaborative monitoring provides
massive advantages, particularly for local communities and collaborative monitoring,
feedback and re-evaluation leads to shared understanding of the various systems
management, fosters social learning and builds community. Currently, there is a growing
focus on monitoring and evaluating the associated outcomes with the improvement of
climate risk management (Hallegatte and Engle 2019). Therefore, an important part of the
Chapter 2: Literature Review
44
monitoring and evaluation characteristic is the incorporation of community members, as this
is important for providing information and feedback. Indeed, communities can sometimes
do what governments are not able to, through providing information that relates to their
own behaviours, abilities and demands (Bowles and Gintis 2002).
Thus, involving and empowering communities to define their own goals, strategies and
monitoring and evaluations will significantly enhance ownership and the participatory
development and learning processes (Uitto and Shaw 2006). It is argued that the community
monitoring of their facilities is an important aspect in community empowerment. When the
local community becomes able to understand the aspects or methods of monitoring, then
the communities will be able to manage their facilities, and with time they can comprehend
the methods and processes used for evaluating the various decisions that relate to their own
development. However, there is still a need to investigate whether the monitoring and
evaluation processes lead to effective ways of communicating the problems to the various
parties in order to enhance the significant polices and plans and outcomes of the decision-
making process (Bennett 2016). Mainly, long term risk monitoring can be vital in creating
evidence about environmental laws, for instance legislation associated with the water
management process, with the focus on pollution (Likens and Lindenmayer 2018).
Accordingly, based on the literature, Table 2-6 shows the main characteristic for this theme.
Table 2.6: Characteristics to enable AG-3: Continuous testing, monitoring, and evaluation
AG-3: Continuous Testing, Monitoring, and Evaluation
Characteristics Source
C.6 Monitoring and continuous
evaluation of development facilities
Bowles and Gintis 2002, Kiparsky and
Gleick 2003, Tanner et al 2009, Kallis et al
2009, Nkhata and Breen 2010, Tomlinson
et al 2011, Plummer et al 2012, Bennett
2016, Likens and Lindenmayer 2018
Chapter 2: Literature Review
45
AG-4: Develop Capacities with CC Impacts
In relation to governance, the design and management processes of various facilities must
be based on both the environmental or engineering legislations and also related to the
demands of the communities who use these facilities, in addition to their satisfaction level
(Tyler and Moench 2012).
It is argued that when the delivered context is not in line with the peoples’ priorities and
essential needs, there is a high possibility that the adaptation process will be unsuccessful
(Cannon and Muller-Mahn 2010). For example, when addressing the relationship between
the possible health impacts of increases in the frequency and intensity of floods it is
important to engage with the main organised party of the professionals who work in public
health and infrastructure planning (Ebi and Semenza 2008). Plans for protecting people’s
lives and enhancing communities’ well-being are an essential part of communities’ resilience,
and this happens through considering the importance of the human needs, rights and well-
being of community members when addressing the overall adaptive human system (Tanner
et al 2015).
It will be important to strengthen the livelihoods of communities to be better equipped
against these impacts. This may be potentially addressed through incorporating
opportunities for enhancement of the communities’ various needs during the design process
and in the development and construction of their homes or neighbourhoods (Schilderman
and Lyons 2011). The development site should not increase the local communities’ exposure
to risks through the creation of unsafe urban hill slopes, coastal or marginal regions
(Brownand and Westaway 2011). It is important to include apparent actions and strategies
for prevention purposes. For instance, an example of adaptation strategies would be a policy
that limits constructing and implementing buildings in flood plains or low-lying coastal areas
(Younger et al 2008). Further, it is demonstrated in the various literature about communities
and building resilience that the strategies for protecting people’s lives during and after
disasters should be prioritised in the decision-making process.
However, addressing the well-being of communities does not only rely on creating more safe
homes or neighbourhoods, but it also demands the reduction of communities’ exposure to
risks and increasing their capability to adapt to risks and potential CC impacts, through having
programmes for communities’ participation and social networks (Schilderman and Lyons
2011).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
46
Accordingly, based on the literature, Table 2-7 shows the one main characteristic for this
theme.
Table 2.7: Characteristics to enable AG-4: Develop capacities with CC impacts
AG-4: Develop Capacities with CC Impacts
Characteristics Source
C.7 Develop possible actions in facilities in
response to protection from CC risks
Adger and Brooks 2005, Ebi and
Semenza 2008, Younger et al 2008,
Schilderman and Lyons 2011,
Brownand Westaway 2011, Tyler
and Moench 2012, Jacobs et al 2015
2.5.2 Resilient Communities Theoretical Approach
Three themes are considered important to this theoretical approach. The main
characteristics are described below.
RC-1: Nature of Community
The nature of community – the feeling of belonging, being connected, of participation and
organisation – are important issues that can influence community capacity and resilience.
The community feeling of belonging, which is characterised by a high concern for community
issues, their environment and services, is assumed to be a dimension of community capacity
(Goodman et al 1998, p. 261). The existence of shared and inclusive perceptions of belonging
and identity, which provide a basis for the community to come together and act, is an
important matter for resilience (Platts-Fowler and Robinson 2013).
Points that influence community organising efforts include a sense of social connectedness
and a sense of community among neighbourhood residents (Ebi and Semenza 2008). It is
argued that the feelings of attachment are important when trying to influence community
resilience, and are influenced by understanding the nature of community.
This process of connection among communities, in social networks, is important and can
influence the community feeling of belonging and the presence of a sense of community, and
can also influence the process of community preparation for CC scenarios. The community
Chapter 2: Literature Review
47
feeling of attachment to a neighbourhood is considered influential when it comes to
resilience, and describes one’s connection with their environment (Eisenman et al 2016).
It is argued that communities’ resilience requires enhancement of the ways that these
communities are being prepared, not only at household level, but at the community level as
well (Sharifi and Yamagata 2016, 2018). Community participation is widely believed to be a
fundamental element for community resilience (Norris et al 2008).
These issues are important and can give the community a feeling of empowerment and can
offer them the ability to be a real and significant part of the adaptation process. For the most
part, community empowerment encourages neighbourhood stewardship that can be
translated into concrete action, such as physical improvements of the urban environment
(Ebi and Semenza 2008). This influences their resilience as a result.
Accordingly, based on the literature, Table 2-8 shows the one main characteristic for this
theme.
Table 2.8: Characteristics to enable RC-1: Nature of Community
RC-1: Nature of Community
Characteristics Source
C.8 Community feeling of attachment to
neighbourhood & social engagement
Goodman et al 1998, Platts-Fowler and
Robinson 2013, Eisenman et al 2016
Tompkins and Adger 2004, Tanner et al 2009,
Heeks and Ospina 2014, Sharifi and Yamagata
2016, Sharifi and Yamagata 2018
RC-2: Community Adaptive Behaviour towards their Facilities and Built
Environment
It is argued that the interconnection between the environmental and social elements
remains a priority. In order to address the resilience of communities and enable preparation
for CC responsiveness it is important that communities attain the required level of
performance in terms of adaptive behaviour to avoid systems failure (Silva et al 2012, Tylor
and Moench 2012). It is acknowledged that communities’ activities and their engagement
is important to secure beneficial outcomes from their enticement through their
Chapter 2: Literature Review
48
engagement in activities such as environmental resources usage, harvesting strategies,
forests management, flood plains management...etc (Paton and Johnston 2017).
As stated earlier, in principle, the concept of collective action seems to offer one solution to
resource management. This can be achieved through expanding the engagement process of
local communities and addressing the cooperative behaviour of communities to better cope
with Climate Change. Interactions and feedback loops resulting from the implementation of
adaptive management plans and processes provide benefits (Tompkins and Adger 2003). It
should be said, however, that there is a challenge associated with the integration of the local
communities’ actions into local policies, which will constrain the ability of the communities
to adapt and address management resilience (Cash et al 2006). The potential resources
available and ways of operationalisation of resources and mechanisms in a resilience process
are the most determinant factors of the final outcomes, with respect to impacts of CC
(Sapountzaki 2007). Therefore, the behaviour of the community towards their
neighbourhood facilities is an important part of building resilience. Individuals are
encouraged to turn inwards toward personal decisions and self-resourcefulness, and this
issue relates to lifestyle choices and personal opinions. However, this individualisation is also
related to the greater personal responsibility and accountability of behaviour of those
individuals (Sapountzaki 2007). Therefore, as a result, the practices of individual social actors
have been widely acknowledged as ways of promoting adaptation, and resilience
(Sapountzaki 2007).
Thus, local communities must be equipped with the ability to address and implement
suitable behaviours (Ivey et al 2004). For instance, regarding water usage, there are also
concerns about the adaptation capability of urban communities when it comes to the
shortage of water resources as a result of CC impacts, especially as current levels of water
consumption are likely to become unsustainable in the long term (Kallis et al 2009). It is
seen that personal experience is thought to be a vital matter of risk perceptions, and the
perceived likelihood of a risk is found to increase if it has recently been experienced (Spence
et al 2011).
Communities who have knowledge of the accessibility of timely information related to risks
and disasters can be more able to respond to potential CC impacts and risk, particularly when
such information/strategies are needed and adopted by the communities in risk times, such
as evacuation routes and transport support (Moser and Satterthwaite 2010). It is
acknowledged that the local knowledge of communities is very important and needed to
understand the numerous practices that lead to a certain problem that influences CC such as
Chapter 2: Literature Review
49
GHG emissions, and at the same time, it is important to place the measures that face this
problem (Brugnach et al 2017).
It is argued that the existence of local resources, which are collectively held or accessible to
the community and that can be developed and engaged with, is considered a crucial matter
(Platts-Fowler and Robinson 2013). The relationships between resource users at the
community level, their access to new technology, and their willingness to change will
determine their immediate response to CC risks (Tompkins and Adger 2004).
Accordingly, and based on the literature, Table 2-9 shows the three main characteristics for
this theme.
Table 2.9: Characteristics to enable RC-2: Community adaptive behaviour towards their facilities and built environment
RC-2: Community Adaptive Behaviour towards their Facilities and Built Environment
Characteristics Source
C.9 Increase the level of learning and awareness knowledge
Tompkins and Adger 2004, Moser and Satterthwaite 2010, Brugnach et al 2017
C.10 Effective & responsive behaviour for risks
Plsek and Wilson 2001, Bowles and Gintis 2002, Tompkins and Adger 2003, Tompkins and Adger 2004, Ivey et al 2004, Sapountzaki 2007, Silva et al 2012, Tylor and Moench 2012, Paton and Johnston 2017
C.11 Increased Satisfaction with sustainable physical building strategies
Moser and Satterthwaite 2010, Schilderman and Lyons 2011, Tyler and Moench 2012, Tompkins and Adger 2004, Moser and Satterthwaite 2010, Platts-Fowler and Robinson 2013
RC-3: Community Well-Being
It has been argued that human well-being, survival, and geographical distribution have
always depended upon the ability to respond to changes arising from CC (Pecl et al 2017).
Adaptation at the community level means being able to maintain (and preferably
improve) current living standards in the face of expected changes in climate trends
and the intensity and frequency of severe events that may affect people's livelihoods
(Van Aalst et al 2008, P170).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
50
Adaptation to CC requires public-health strategies and improved surveillance (Haines et al
2006). The focus on physical health and the performance of physical facilities and assets is
considered essential for human well-being (McCrea et al 2014). It is argued that when the
delivered context is not in parallel with peoples’ priorities and essential needs there is a high
probability that the adaptation process will be unsuccessful (Cannon and Muller-Mahn 2010).
Understanding the social perception of well-being is very important in order to understand
community resilience. A social understanding of well-being provides a helpful tool with which
to identify the restrictions of policy and governance that are too narrowly focused on limited
indicators (McCrea et al 2014). Therefore, in resilience literature increased attention has
been given on understanding the well-being of individuals or groups within the community.
There is an increased volume of evidence that environmental and natural elements are
essential aspects for human health and well-being (Paton and Johnston 2017).
McCrea et al (2014) demonstrated (based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)
2005 Ecosystems and human well-being) that it is important to aggregate the basic material
needs of health, security and good social relations in order to understand the parts that link
to human well-being. This constitutes the level of satisfaction existing with the local place of
residence, taking into account attachment to it, the social and physical environment, and the
services and facilities (Armitage et al 2012). For instance, health and drinking water supply
are two important matters identified by communities and also seriously influenced by CC
(Van Aalst et al 2008).
It is argued that well-being at the community level is very important, but the relational and
subjective dimensions of the social world remain largely outside the calculus of trade-offs
made by policymakers in a conventional socioeconomic analysis (McCrea et al 2014).
Therefore, understanding these issues is important for this research, but focusing on
economic issues as part of well-being is not included in this study.
There is very limited information available regarding the methods and extent to which CC is
likely to affect the well-being of various groups of communities, and further, what the effect
of the former might be on the available resources for those communities or their livelihoods
(Gentle and Maraseni 2012).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
51
Accordingly, and based on the literature, Table 2-10 shows the main characteristic for this
theme.
Table 2.10: Characteristics to enable RC-3: Community Well-being
RC-3: Community Well-being
Characteristics Source
C.12 Enhanced delivery of human health and well-being
Van Aalst et al 2008, Schilderman and Lyons 2011, Gentle and Maraseni 2012, McCrea et al 2014, Pecl et al 2017, Paton and Johnston 2017
2.5.3 Intermediaries' Theoretical Approach
As illustrated in the sections above about intermediary approach, two main roles are
considered important to this approach, and their key characteristics will be explained below.
I-1: Intermediaries' Role in Facilitating Knowledge
It is argued that intermediaries can influence the pursuit of collective goals under shifting
governance structures and processes (Moss 2009). Indeed, the intermediaries undertake
activities in the development process, related to the building of social communication and
collaboration, through aligning interests, aiming for collaboration among the actors, and
through facilitating knowledge sharing and learning (Kivima 2014; Bush et al 2017; Hodson
and Marvin 2010). Also, there are studies, such as the work by Jones et al (2016), which have
focused on the importance of non-governmental organisations as intermediaries that
positively contribute to the climate services, through improvement in shared knowledge and
enhanced collaboration and learning. Adaptation to CC impacts and risks can be restricted
due to different factors, particularly with a lack of detailed information about CC influence
(Ricart et al 2019).
On the other hand, it is acknowledged that intermediaries for the most part have important
roles in working towards community development processes and advancing sustainability
targets. These intermediaries link actors, activities, skills and resources connected to these
actors for the development and enhancement of ideas, collaborations and technologies
(Kivimaa et al 2014; Kivimaa et al 2018). However, there is still a need to understand the role
Chapter 2: Literature Review
52
of intermediaries in the process of communicating with the community to address resilience
in their neighbourhood. Notably, the intermediaries’ role is important at both the
governance level and the community level.
The process of knowledge and information exchange through the collaboration and bridging
of actors is important for addressing adaptation, through social-learning exchange between
the various actors that may assist in promoting common understanding and to lessen
vulnerability (Ricart et al 2019). Addressing the capacity to learn interlinks with the system’s
capability to integrate traditional and new knowledge, to establish an advanced learning
process that is essential for addressing the right attitudes and skills for the development
process, especially during times of risk (Heeks and Ospina 2014). It has been demonstrated
that intermediaries are able to combine the different principles of organisation and exceed
traditional boundaries regarding communications: between different departments and
professions, between the governmental and administrative levels and agents, between
formal/administrative and less formal or local communities/actors (Fehren 2010). This issue
also requires maintaining participatory and collaborative behaviours among the actors over
the longer term (Djalante et al 2011).
The communities and their interaction with resources and the environment, regarding water
use for instance, is acknowledged to affect the adaptation targets. It is argued that
intermediaries can be beneficial and influence this issue, through applied strategies and
measures of technological aspects and their relation with the social practices that influence
water consumption rates and wastewater production (Moss 2009). This issue is affected by
the intermediaries as organisations that act between the traditional relationships of utilities,
regulators and end users to enable these relations and strategies, and to maintain these
networks (Moss 2009).
At the same time, these communities have to avoid the transfer and inclusion of incorrect
information about CC and adaptation solutions (Little 2002). It is acknowledged that
intermediaries need to address this not only in relation to the knowledge or information
communication process, but also in updating and keeping long-term communication with the
various actors as well (Moss 2009). However, there is a leading issue concerning the
relationship between responsive behaviour towards resource use, when policy changes, and
addressing feedback and update aspects (Marshall and Marshall 2007).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
53
The intermediaries have a crucial role in this process, and it is important to identify them and
include them from the beginning (Howells 2006). The identification and organisation of
various actors in the planning and implementation process is thus a key issue.
Therefore, the intermediaries need to have complete access through building relationships
with actors from both the local community and the municipal authority and administration
(Fehren 2010). Accessing information and knowledge before and after risks is an essential
matter for adaptation and promotion of resilience. Therefore, the intermediaries should be
in a place where they can have good access to resources and information, in order to deliver
the response or the systemic outcome, whether at the local level or across multiple levels
(Fehren 2010).
Intermediaries could also be of importance in increasing organisational capability and the
learning of communities to be able to adapt. It is argued that intermediaries have roles that
relate to knowledge gathering, processing, generation and combination, as well as
technology assessment and evaluation (Kivimaa 2014). Such monitoring reports are not only
for resource usage, but also relate to the ways that and the extent to which communities
might effectively monitor the behaviour of its members to confirm the achievement of the
required adaptable actions (Bowles and Gintis 2002).
However, it is acknowledged that policy should encourage communities towards having
better knowledge and to increase their learning, through a number of ways such as the
provision of incentives to the various participants of communities as a part of the multi-level
governance towards adaptation targets (Folke et al 2002). In water management, for
instance, there is no doubt that the methods and timing of interactions among the local
communities and the local organisations that promote sustainability at any stage is a crucial
matter in addressing the sharing and production of the information and attitudes needed for
adaptation (Ivey et al 2004). This is a topic for further research, however.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
54
Accordingly, based on the literature, Table 2-11 shows the four main characteristics for this
theme.
Table 2.11: Characteristics to enable I-1: Mediation between different research disciplines to facilitate knowledge transfer & Learning
I-2: Intermediaries Roles
Characteristics Source
C.13 Information availability & interpretation
Kivima 2014; Jones et al 2016; Bush et al 2017; Ricart et al 2019
C.14 Communication between departments
Fehren 2010; Djalante et al 2011; Jones et al 2016
C.15 Long-term programmes for community organisation capability and adaptive behaviour
Folke et al 2002; Little 2002; Tompkins and Adger 2003; Ivey et al 2004; Pahl -Wostl et al 2007; Adger et al 2009; Moss 2009; Kivimaa 2014
C.16 Bottom- up feedback from iterative process of adaptive social learning
Tompkins and Adger 2003; Sharifi and Yamagata 2016
C.17 Training and educational programme Folke et al 2002; Fehren 2010; Ricart et al 2019
I-2: Mediator Role in Making Social Changes
In the work of (Latour 2005) it was shown that mediators have complex jobs in making the
radical changes needed for the various issues, no matter how apparently simple they may
appear. The role of mediators is important and starts with the process of creation of the
network that it is aimed at creating the change (Kivima 2014; Bush et al 2017).
It is argued that the integration of intermediaries’ role could be important in changing the
behaviour of communities towards more sustainable and adaptable targets. For instance, it
is demonstrated that any of the mediators studied are undeniably influential in promoting
more sustainable forms of water use (Moss 2009). Indeed, these are all important parts in
the adaptive management process. Accordingly, addressing behavioural change is essential
for addressing the communities’ adaptation (Plsek and Wilson 2001), and demands the
inclusion of key uncertainties and continuous re-evaluation (Williams 2011). In turn, the
focus should be on identifying problems and presenting a prepared plan that is able to create
Chapter 2: Literature Review
55
a quick and efficient response after a disaster (Tylor and Moench 2012). Furthermore,
bottom-up feedback from users is useful for rapid detection of potential failures. These
communal solutions contribute to the iterative process of adaptive social learning and
increases the social capital of communities which would be important for both risk avoidance
and recovery (Sharifi and Yamagata 2016).
In order to promote the vital involvement of communities in their own development, access
to relevant information is essential, as without an equal right for communities to access
information, the whole idea of communities’ collaboration and engagement processes would
be redundant (Tanner et al 2009). This issue is of increased importance when the
communities are dependent on natural resources in their daily lives, and in this case, the
adaptive capacity of these communities should be increased through increasing the
empowerment of these communities towards their environment.
Building community capacity and resilience is largely dependent on the development of
knowledge and the ability to continuously learn to adapt (Chaskin 2008), with an equal right
for communities to access information (Tanner et al 2009; Heeks and Ospina 2014), and with
an effective and culturally relevant education about risks implemented (Chandra et al 2011).
The role of mediators is closely related to education and training, provision of advice and
support, and creating conditions for learning by hands-on activity (Kivimaa 2014).
Therefore, identifying, mobilising and involving relevant actors is important (Van Lente et al
2003). Further, collaboration of local communities with the government through the
interconnection process and collective actions is important in promoting the processing of
information and managing of knowledge to implement successful adaptation plans and
targets for community resilience to better cope with CC impacts and potential risks
(Tompkins and Adger 2003; Pahl-Wostl et al 2007). For instance, it is acknowledged that the
existence of a large number of diverse organisations who have intermediary roles as
mediators can perform various actions capable of influencing water management in a
considerable way, whether through collective or non-collective actions (Moss et al 2009).
It should be mentioned that the access various networks have to different information
resources is an important topic. In this context, it is important to study the various
communities’ interactive ways of communication and information transfer to address
adaptive behaviour and outcomes (Little 2002), and how this issue is influenced by
mediators. This places an equal importance on the participation of all community members
and equal opportunity for all to be involved. This equality of opportunity is associated with
Chapter 2: Literature Review
56
the provision of access by various communities’ individuals in relation to resources,
information, and opportunities to be made available in their communities’ context (Heeks
and Ospina 2014). For instance, it is indicated that public awareness of CC is positively
associated with the government’s targets that are set in relation to pollutant reductions
(Drummond et al 2018).
Ensuring that information remains up to date and accessible will enable community risk
preparation, and will avoid the potential delays of the impacts and risks which actually occur
(Pelling 2010). Many adaptation strategies will be more effective if they are designed,
implemented, and monitored with a strong level of community inclusion and engagement
(Ebi and Semenza 2008). However, addressing adaptation requires greater focus on the
preparation of communities, which needs a wide range of community individuals and actors
to be involved in developing and implementing these strategies, thus enhancing preparation
(Sharifi and Yamagata 2016, 2018). The mediators’ roles can be important in bonding the
community groups towards the process of making them a vital part in the preparation
process tied to CC (Moss 2009). For this, community uncertainties about how social learning
is achieved, its measurement, and the possible outcomes cause issues with regards to
justifying an investment into approaches that may demand changes in practice and resource
allocation (Ensor and Harvey 2015). For example, Jones et al (2016) mentioned that for
implementing climate resilience strategies through the role of NGOs as mediators, there are
important roles in development and delivery established, based on the collection of
observational climate data, linking the local communities’ knowledge with the information
of climate experts, translating the technical information into comprehensible, local, non-
technical language for communication and explanation of the issues that are linked to
uncertainty levels, and supporting the uptake of climate information in local and national
decision-making.
Enabling local communities to take a collaborative role in the development of their
communities is important in developing their understanding of the context in which they live,
and to promote their adaptive behaviour towards this context, whether physical or social.
This requires organised processes among the participating community, where incorporation
of organisational capability within the community collaboration process can increase their
resilience to various CC impacts, even within the context of large-scale disasters (Krasny and
Tidball 2009).
This empowerment and participation planning should be as long term as possible. It should
encourage strategic thinking, helping community groups to think about a systematic picture
of the sector and the possible outcomes of the various structures that could be developed to
Chapter 2: Literature Review
57
support them over time (Bird and Barnes 2014). This is especially the case at times of risk,
where changes are needed.
Accordingly, based on the literature, Table 2-12 shows the three main characteristics for this
theme.
Table 2.12: Characteristics to enable I-2: Empower the role of local Communities
I-2: Empower the Role of Local Communities
Characteristics Source
C.18 Create the Network and identify targets and strategies
Latour 2005; Tylor and Moench 2012; Sharifi and Yamagata 2016
C.19 Understand the nature of community and enable their active involvement & participation
Ebi and Semenza 2008; Moss 2009; Pelling 2010; Bird and Barnes 2014; Sharifi and Yamagata 2018
C.20 Information update and translate the information
Krasny and Tidball 2009; Ensor and Harvey 2015; Jones et al 2016; Sharifi and Yamagata 2018
2.6 Investigation of the Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment
Potential towards Building Social Adaptation to CC
It has been acknowledged elsewhere that Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment tools
(NSAs) are important in acting as the physical manifestation of the frontline battle for
sustainability at the neighbourhood scale, as a distinct part of a larger urban/city scale
(Choguill 2007). The sustainability tools available to date have covered sectors including
energy, transportation, buildings and water. It is argued that this sustainability coverage can
be considered as the broadness and profundity of the sustainability topics that are addressed
in the development process (Yigitcanlar and Dur 2010).
For CC adaptation, it is argued that the adoption of sustainability assessment tools can
already provide support in adapting to CC, through their effect when it comes to managing
resources for communities (Parry et al 2007), and also in directing decision-making towards
sustainability (Bond et al 2012).
In this situation, existing sustainability assessment tools, which are referred to in the
literature, consist of a range of indicators, across a breadth of sectors that aim to guarantee
an appropriate endeavour in the conservation of environment and mitigation of CC (Bakar
and Cheen 2013). Importantly, these indicators can ideally stimulate processes to enhance
Chapter 2: Literature Review
58
the overall understanding of environmental and social problems, facilitate community
capacity building, and help guide policy and development projects (Reed et al 2006).
These assessment tools are comprised of indicators that are practical components designed
to track various changes over time (Fekete and Stakhiv 2014). The assessment of
sustainability through the use of sustainability assessment tools, through their constituent
indicators, is a well-established and documented approach for various development sectors
(Makropoulos et al 2008; Ness et al 2007). It is also acknowledged that they have a vital role
in the creation of sustainable communities (Sharifi and Murayama 2014) and are likely to
continue to be used widely into the future (Charlton and Arnell 2011). As a result, there is a
need to investigate how and to what extent information is passed through these tools'
content ‘indicators’, and then how the mediators are enabling the creation process of
sustainable community, progressing towards building adaptive capacity related to CC. It
should be said that the intermediaries constitute both human and non-human actors that
influence the intermediary and mediating roles. So, when talking about these tools, it means
investigating the role of these tools as tools that constitute actors and indicators, that could
represent the human and non-human actors.
It should be said that these intermediary tools, as they could perhaps be termed, not only
relate to the application of the categories and indicators as main methodological approaches
for sustainability, but they are highly influenced by other actors such as planners, developers
& authority actors. So, acknowledging and investigating the role of those actors that
influence the role of these sustainability assessment tools is also important. It is recognised
that the usage of advanced and suitable tools could have a substantial effect in making actors
move away from their current thinking and attitudes and to become effectively engaged in
the CC adaptation process (Bergkamp et al 2003, p.35). Sullivan et al (2014) argued that there
are relatively few research studies examining the effects of frameworks on their users, the
development process, and the wider social/institutional environment, such as planning.
Therefore, in general, it seems that there is still a need to establish how tools such as NSAs
can work in the wider planning context, with the inclusion of stakeholder participation
(Sullivan et al 2014). Also, it has been recognised that the assessment of progress toward
resilience requires consideration of those intermediary processes that increase the likelihood
of resilience (Zautra et al 2011).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
59
NSAs, as intermediaries, are currently being developed at a fast pace and are becoming
adopted by urban planners and developers in order to address urban sustainability (Boyle et
al 2018) in both new development and regeneration development contexts. Despite the
importance of sustainability assessment tools in educating users and maintaining the
incorporation of sustainability strategies into planning, design, and construction, a
substantial gap remains in their ability to incorporate hazard resistance and hazard mitigation
in the broader context of sustainable design (Matthews et al 2014), as well as in relation with
the engagement of actors, including the community (Sullivan et al 2014).
Accordingly, this research needs to investigate the potential of NSAs as tools that combine
the indicators and their associated actors, in order to explore their capacity to address
resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change. In this context, it is an essential matter to
review and investigate the importance of the sustainability assessment tools as potential
tools that integrate both the theoretical applied indicators and actors that influence the
development process.
2.7 Sub-Conclusion:
This chapter has focused on building a framework to address the importance of investigating
social adaptation at the neighbourhood scale. It is acknowledged that Climate Change
adaptation and sustainability should be explored as two integrated concepts and not
separated ones. In this context, it is a key to explore the potential of neighbourhood
sustainability assessment tools as representative tools for sustainability, to address
adaptation at the neighbourhood scale considered in this study.
It is argued that in order to build social adaptation, governance, community and
intermediaries are considered as the main levels for the process of addressing adaptation in
the social context. Both adaptive capacity and resilience are key integrated methods that
need to be acknowledged when building adaptation to Climate Change.
In this chapter, three theoretical approaches are presented for the investigation of social
adaptation analysis, namely Adaptive Governance, Resilient Communities and
Intermediaries. The main themes and characteristics representing these three approaches
have been identified to build a practical method. There are nine main themes and 20
characteristics proposed for the analysis of this research, as Table 2-13 summarises.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
60
This research aims to analyse the resultant themes and characteristics against both a
theoretical and live application of neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools. The
identification of the potential of neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools as tools with
the capability for social adaptation is needed in both the literature examining sustainability
as well as Climate Change adaptation. For the most part, research is still required to include
methodological developments, indicator studies, testing and evaluation of adaptation
characteristics, and actor participation (Fussel 2007; Lee et al 2015). This is regarding the
level of action taken by local government and national policies (Vignola et al 2009; Roberts
2010). Research is also required to investigate the social context required, such as where
local communities themselves become capable of adapting to the variable impacts of Climate
Change and its associated potential risks (Roberts 2010; Lee et al 2015).
Chapter 2: Literature Review
61
Table 2.13: AG & RC & I Themes & characteristics
Theory Themes Characteristics
Adaptive Governance (AG)
AG-1: Extended collaboration process
C.1 Broad inclusion of actors for effective management
C.2 Strong local institution support
AG-2: Build knowledge and understanding
C.3 Focus/incorporation of information and understanding the impacts of CC & potential risks
C.4 Shared/participatory ways of knowledge
C.5 Consider the physical performance of resource facilities
AG-3: Continuous monitoring & evaluation
C.6 Monitoring and continuous evaluation of development facilities
AG-4: Develop capacities with CC impacts
C.7 Develop the possible actions in facilities in response
Resilient Community (RC)
RC-1: Nature of Community
C.8 Community feeling of attachment & social engagement
RC-2: Community adaptive behaviour towards their facilities and built environment
C.9 Increase the level of learning and awareness knowledge
C.10 Effective & responsive behaviour for risks
RC-3: Community well-being
C.11 Increased satisfaction with physical strategies
C.12 Enhanced delivery of human health and well-being
Intermediaries (I)
I-1: Intermediaries role in facilitating knowledge transfer
C.13 Information availability & interpretation
C.14 Communication between departments
C.15 Long-term programmes for community organisation capability and adaptive behaviour
C.16 Bottom- up feedback from iterative process of adaptive social learning
C.17 Training and educational programme
I-2: Mediator roles in making the change
C.18 Create the Network and identify the targets and strategies
C.19 Understanding the nature of community and enable their active involvement & participation
C.20 Information update and translate the information
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
62
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
3.1 Introduction
The case study research approach is important to respond to the “how” and “why” types of
questions, while taking into consideration how a phenomenon is influenced by the context
within which it is situated (Yin 2003).
This chapter aims to present the argument for the selection of a particular neighbourhood
scale sustainable assessment tool, BREEAM Communities (BC), and the practical case study,
MediaCity, Manchester, that will enable the evaluation of the tool’s impact in theory and in
application. The case study tool is chosen from the range of available NSA on the basis of
existing coverage of the social context, both in terms of governance and community, with
regard to evaluation, coverage of categories and relevant indicators. It is acknowledged,
however, that despite the coverage within BC’s theoretical indicators that are associated
with the social context, there is a need to evaluate the performance of these indicators
towards promoting adaptation in the social context. This issue is important to address the
main aim of this research regarding the evaluation of the social adaptation approaches of
Adaptive Governance, Resilient Communities & Intermediaries, in linkage with these tools.
Case studies have often been considered to be part of qualitative research and methodology;
they may also be quantitative or contain a combination of qualitative and quantitative
approaches (Starman 2013). However, qualitative case study methodology is considered as
an essential tool for the study of complex phenomena within their contexts, where it
becomes a valuable method in research to develop theory, assess cases, and develop
interventions (Baxter and Jack 2008).
The MediaCity regeneration project was selected as the case study for this research for the
following reasons:
- MediaCityUK was awarded the status of the first sustainable community in the world by
BREEAM Communities in 2011.
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
63
- It has integrated significant sustainable strategies to deliver community-scale
sustainability in terms of promoting their needs and priorities, in addition to the
implementation of sustainable physical strategies.
Indeed, delivering MediaCity as a sustainable community was the main argument for
implementation of BC within the project, as well as in promoting these strategies across the
whole Salford area and the wider Manchester conurbation. The research will evaluate these
applied strategies in terms of the three theoretical approaches identified in chapter 2. In
practice, it is argued that BC actors are involved in both the governance and the community
levels regarding the planning and implementation of strategies of sustainability; however,
there is a level of ambiguity associated with the role of BC actors/experts acting in
intermediary and/or mediation roles among and between the various actors, towards
promoting the adaptation.
3.2 The Importance of the NSA Theoretical and Practical Case Study
Context
The case study is considered as a research method that constitutes empirical inquiries which
explore and investigate important and current issues within their real-life context (Yin 1984).
The case study allows an investigation of real-life events such as individual life cycles,
organisational and managerial processes, neighbourhood change and environmental
impacts.
It is acknowledged that the application of NSAs is a process that integrates many actors, and
has addressed various categories including Water, Energy and Community, through the
adoption of comprehensive indicators. Understanding the coverage of these sectors in
existing tools necessitates an analysis of the indicators as well as their methods of
measurement and weighting. Typically, indicators are simple measures: most often
quantitative measures that represent a state of economic, social and environmental
development in a defined area (Ness et al 2007). However, in order to promote holistic
sustainable development strategies and targets, the indicators need to be acknowledged or
measured in a wider sense, employing techniques that are influenced by the actors’
engagement processes (Ness et al 2007).
So, understanding these indicators’ performance and the various actors involved is crucial in
order to investigate the NSAs’ role and performance in theory and practice in the
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
64
development process. In this research, this investigation is focused on the role of NSAs in
addressing adaptation in the social context, where both indicators and the practical case
study will be analysed based on the evaluation characteristics of the three theoretical
approaches that were identified in chapter 2.
However, in order to promote holistic sustainable development strategies and targets, the
indicators need to be acknowledged or measured in a wider sense, through the embedding
of techniques that influence the actors’ engagement process (Ness et al 2007). In other
words, the case study method is important to investigate the application of the phenomena
which here are associated with the sustainability tools’ influences on adaptation in the social
context. Notably, Yin (2003) demonstrated that the case study method is used when there is
a focus on a certain situation, to answer how and when questions, understand the actors’
behaviour and contextual conditions that influence this situation. Given that the exemplar
methodology has become an increasingly popular means of investigating issues of social
constructs such as activism, care, environmental activism, and purpose in life, through
studying selected samples of the development measures and individuals, and construct
questions around investigating these issue (Bronk 2012).
Therefore, conducting exemplar research can add a great deal to our understanding of
positive developmental phenomena, and it provides a picture of complete or nearly complete
development, and adding this understanding to research on deficient to give us the ability to
examine the influences of the development (Bronk 2012).
In this research, the performance of the contents of these indicators needs to be investigated
in theory by evaluating the tools’ manuals and in practice through consideration of a case
study when the actors are involved. It is argued that the case study suggests that agency
concerning more sustainable outcomes needs to be displayed through the lens of an
organisational and authority leadership (Rydin 2012), which, therefore, means that the
investigation of both the context and the influenced actors are important for the
investigation of the sustainability tools’ performance.
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
65
Accordingly, the evaluation of the indicators in the case study represents two major
approaches to explore the performance of the tools in theory and practice. The evaluation
of sustainability through the use of sustainability tools, consisting of indicators, is a well-
established and documented approach for various development sectors (Makropoulos et al
2008; Ness et al 2007). The improvements in sustainability performance resulting from the
application of indicators are not only associated with their identification and application, but
also, with the processes of engagement and their selection (Dewulf et al 2005). So, the case
study is indispensable here. However, as Urwin and Jordan (2008) have suggested, case
studies are far from being only an exploratory strategy. Further, the research of case studies
can constitute single or multiple case studies (Urwin and Jordan 2008) and it is demonstrated
that when a single case study is used, the researcher can question specific theoretical
relationships and explore new ones because of the depth of study that can be made. The
single case study is adopted when, for example, there is a focus on the roles of institutions
or organisations (Gustafsson 2017).
Here, in this research the investigation is therefore focused on the exploration of a single
case study, as the main aim is to explore the potential of the NSA to enable adaptation to
Climate Change in the social context, which has been identified as an issue that is lacking in
the literature.
The investigation of the indicators and their potential to influence the process of social
adaptation to CC is important due to their social focus on governance and the community. It
has been acknowledged that indicators should be built on the basis of local information and
data, to act as practical monitoring measures towards sustainable development targets
(Reed et al 2006). In other words, indicators must not only be relevant to local people, but
the methods used to collect, interpret and display data must be easily and effectively used
by non-specialists so that local communities can be active participants in the process. Thus,
ideally, sustainability indicators embedded within NSAs should go far beyond simply
measuring progress towards quantitatively defined objectives (Reed et al 2006). The NSAs do
currently include indicators that are associated with the community regarding their
participation in decision-making, community management, and addressing their needs in the
development process (Reith and Orova 2015). However, it has been argued that this remains
insufficiently addressed in existing NSAs (Zakaria and Vikneswaran 2009; Reith and Orova
2015).
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
66
In addition, there is a level of ambiguity regarding the social context within existing NSAs
associated with decision-making, and the evaluation strategies that are followed by the
planners and decision makers through using different categories and indicators to evaluate
both the social and cultural sustainability contexts (Sharifi and Murayama 2015).
Nevertheless, there has been a widespread application of these tools on various
development projects (Haapio 2012) and throughout the development stages. Generally, the
use of these tools is seen as positive within the planning and implementation of strategies
for the construction industry (Garde 2009; Schweber 2013). However, notwithstanding the
fact that more than one decade has passed since the introduction of NSA tools, there is a
current deficiency in the amount of research evaluating their performance and efficacy in the
context of practical case studies (Sharifi and Murayama 2013).
In the next section, the three most popular NSA tools are considered. On the basis of
comparison and evaluation, the case study NSA tool for this research was selected, and the
relevant indicators for the investigation in the social context were identified.
3.2.1 Popular NSA tools
Many tools such as LEED-ND, BC, CASBEE-UD, Earth Craft Communities, DGNB for Urban
Development, Green Star Communities, Star Community Index, GSAS/QSAS Neighbourhoods
and Green Mark for Districts, have been developed to facilitate sustainability assessment
beyond the level of a single building (Sharifi and Murayama 2013b, 2013c). Currently, several
NSAs that are applied around the world can be categorised into two groups: spin off tools
and plan-embedded tools (Table 3-1):
Table 3. 1 Well-known NSA tools (Sharifi and Murayama 2013)
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
67
The first group is comprised of tools that developed from building scale assessment,
including, LEED-ND, BREEAM Communities (BC), and CASBEE-UD, while the second group
includes those that emerged only for assessment of neighbourhood-scale plans and
sustainability initiatives (Sharifi 2013).
LEED-ND was the result of the coming together of the US Green Building Council (USGBC),
the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), and the Natural Resources Defence Council
(NRDC) as organisations that represent leading design professionals, progressive builders
and developers, and the environmental community (Council UGB 2009). BC was developed
in 2009 as an important international tool, designed to promote and assess sustainability
at the community scale (BREEAM 2009). BC is one of the most developed international tools
at this scale, aiming to enable new developments to achieve environmental sustainability
targets. According to BRE Global, the tool includes a wide list of essential aspects designed
to assist developers, communities and local authorities to integrate environmental
sustainability into the design and planning stages (BC 2012, p.15). Finally, CASBEE-UD was
developed by the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC), that involves committees
in academic, industrial and government sectors, and, like LEED and BREEAM, its family of
assessment tools includes those that can be applied at housing, building, and urban scales
(CASBEE for Urban Development 2007).
The various NSAs comprise categories and indicators that are associated with environmental
issues, including energy, water, transportation, resources, in order to address the protection
of the environment from the potentially harmful impacts of development. Arguably this
should include protection from the direct and on-going impacts and risks resulting from
Climate Change, core to the aim of the work being undertaken here. However, as has been
established from the literature, the social part of sustainability assessment tools is still in
need of further investigation. Indeed, this human dimension has largely been ignored in the
sustainability context for almost two decades, in comparison with the increased focus on the
bio-physical, environmental issues (Vallance et al 2011 p. 342; Langlois et al 2012; Annan-
Diab and Molinari 2017). It is therefore vital to understand how the application of these tools
is affecting occupants’ quality of life, whether positively or negatively, particularly in the long
term (Turcu 2012).
Within the NSAs, as with similar tools applicable at other scales including building and city,
the environmental categories present the largest proportion of the measures, compared with
the other aspects of sustainability. It could be argued that the environmental aspect of
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
68
sustainability is the main intent of these tools (Matthews et al 2014). For instance, according
to Happio (2012), the most significant category within CASBEE-UD is the Infrastructure
category with focus on the categories of Resources, Energy and Ecology; also for LEED-ND in
terms of the focus on categories of Infrastructure with an importance also given to the
ecology category; while in BREEAM Communities, the categories of Infrastructure and
Transportation are again the largest focus. The next section will explore the coverage and
scope of these three tools in order to inform the case study selection.
3.3 Selection of NSA Case Study Tool
LEED-ND, BC & CASBEE-UD are the three tools that are the most widely applied in various
global contexts. Indeed according to Beradi (2013), these represent the most internationally
known systems, especially as the building versions of these tools have been significantly
adopted, as many researchers have demonstrated in their studies (Haapio and Viitaniemi
2008; Garde 2009; Sharifi 2013; Sharifi and Murayama 2013; Berardi 2013; Reith and Orova
2014; Sullivan et al 2014; Reith and Orova 2015). Their prominence is perhaps due to the
existing significant diffusion of sustainability assessments of buildings, and their promise to
diffuse this practice to the community scale (Berardi 2013). The popularity of these tools, in
particular, is not only due to their status as the most developed currently applied NSAs
(Turner 2010), but, also, that they seek to address all three pillars of sustainability; further
that their manuals are made readily accessible (Berardi 2013).
The three community-scale NSAs will now be evaluated in relation to their coverage and
scope regarding social context. In particular the following aspects will be evaluated below in
order to inform the selection of the case study tool:
- Mandatory indicators
- Implementation
- Actor engagement and community inclusion.
• Mandatory indicators:
The nature of the CASBEE-UD system differs from that of LEED-ND and BREAM
Communities in that the tool has no prerequisites. So, all indicators in CASBEE-UD are
optional. Further comparison, as seen in Table 3-2 below, demonstrates that only 24% of
BC criteria are mandatory with 76% optional; this is found to be in contrast with other
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
69
comparable NSAs, where many alternative tools constitute 100% optional criteria. In the
context of this work it is suggested that such a breadth of optional criteria might have the
potential to negatively influence the adoption of adaptation principles and targets.
Table 3-2 Percentages of mandatory and optional elements in NSA tools (After Sharifi and Murayama 2013)
NSA Tools LEED-ND BREEAM Communities CASBEE-
UD
Mandatory 21% 24% 0%
Optional 79% 76% 100%
Generally, the structure of the BC tool combines optional and mandatory indicators across
the five categories, which is considered to be positive, as this gives the tool flexibility while
ensuring it drives real and measurable improvement (Arayici et al 2010). Previously it has
been demonstrated that the application of mandatory indicators is seen as important to
ensure that the minimum sustainability requirements are met (Garde 2009; Sharifi and
Murayama 2013). However, there is still a need to understand whether the issue is affecting
the tool’s capability in promoting sustainability and adaptation.
The coverage of the indicators in association to a certain sector is very important and relates
to the performance of these tools across the development stages. Further, application of
these indicators enhances sustainability, and as a result, these indicators should be able to
cope with various changes of the sectors and decision-making process regarding the specific
institutional circumstances, data availability and management approaches (Ioris et al 2008).
Very little research has focused on understanding what performance is really expected when
applying each indicator (Sullivan et al 2014), in the context of case studies.
• Implementation:
LEED-ND is considered as a voluntary tool regarding aspects of implementation, where there
is no legislation supporting its implementation (Sharifi and Murayama 2013). CASBEE-UD is
mainly associated with specific grand projects and for the environmental sustainability focus
only (ibid) despite the existence of the legislation of environmental impact assessment in
Japan.
Compared to these two tools, BC shows a stronger implementation potential, in which there
is a concrete legislation basis for the process of sustainability assessment, with respect to its
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
70
potential in speeding up implementation. It also has greater reliability and a cheaper cost in
comparison with the two previous tools (Sharifi and Murayama 2013).
BC is adopting a process called ‘International Bespoke’, which provides assessment of the
applicability issues in the context of international projects. It will embed in the applied tool
those indicators related to the local factors of these projects, such as climate, culture, and
others (Sullivan et al 2014). This is favourable when compared with the others which have
stronger embedded linkages to their original local contexts, and are not as flexible to settings
outside these contexts (Haapio 2012).
Further, each of the NSAs includes indicators that are associated with the community,
regarding their participation in the decision-making process, community management, and
addressing their needs in the development process (Reith and Orova 2015). However, it is
argued that this remains insufficiently addressed in the NSAs being considered here (Zakaria
and Vikneswaran 2009; Reith and Orova 2015). Therefore, more research is needed for the
investigation of the implementation of NSAs and their capacity to address sustainability and
adaptation in the social context.
• Actor engagement and community inclusion:
It can be argued that actors’ engagement, constituting the experts and local community, is
an important part of the tools’ application process in the main planning and implementation
of the strategies that relate to these tools. However, the focus on including the various actors
in the governance process, including the community, has been differently indicated in the
three NSAs being compared here. Despite the fact that many institutions and organisations
have been involved in the planning and implementation stages, the effects of the tools on
the actors’ engagement and planning has not been investigated to date (Sullivan et al 2014).
While such tools are typically used by governments (local and national) in order to “rais[e]
public awareness, promoting achievements of standards over and above the minimum
regulatory requirements and in maintaining dialogue with the private sector” (Lee 2013, p.
403), it is still difficult to distinguish the real users of the tools, and there has been only limited
research on this topic (Haapio and Viitaniemi 2008, p. 476).
It is argued that during the governance process, LEED-ND has no requirement to hold
meetings with local communities or public officials, or to gather actors together (Sullivan et
al 2014). However, this issue is considered important in BC. It has been demonstrated that
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
71
the BC enables the communication process among the various actors, including the
community, and promotes benefits for the community and the site through the application
of the sustainability strategies (www.BC.com 2019). In CASBEE-UD the focus in this tool has
been reduced to those actors directly involved, including actors in the industry, government
and academia (Sharifi and Murayama 2013).
Table 3. 3 The main categories of the three NSAs
LEED-ND BREEAM Communities CASBEE-UD
• Smart location and linkage
• Neighbourhood pattern and design
• Green infrastructure and buildings
• Innovation and design process
• Regional priority credit
• Governance
• Social and economic well-being
• Resources and energy
• Land use and ecology
• Transport and movement
• Natural environmental
• Quality in urban development
• Service function for the designated area
• Contribution to the local community (history, culture, scenery, and revitalisation)
• Environmental impact on microclimates
• Facade and landscape
• Social infrastructure
As can be seen in Table -3-3- above, BC includes two main categories that relate to the
governance process and actors’ engagement with a focus on community engagement and
the management process, and a further category that considers the issues associated with
community well-being and social and economic needs and priorities. In the other two tools,
LEED-ND does not have a category that is focused on governance or the community as a
specific category, while CASBEE-UD has incorporated one optional category that has a focus
on community aspects. For example, CASBEE-UD has a few criteria in the category of health
and well-being, as well as several relevant criteria in the categories of infrastructure, location
and transportation (Haapi 2012), all of which are optional.
Garde (2009) concluded, from a survey of 11 respondents, that the application of LEED-ND
appeared to have very little influence on the planning and design of projects. So, despite the
inclusion of the various actors in the process of applying and implementing these tools, the
issue of community engagement is yet to be adequately covered by NSAs (Berardi 2013).
Therefore, regarding the focus across such points by the community scale NSAs, BC is
considered to have a better potential focus on the social aspects and theoretical applicability
of indicators. This is not only because BC is the oldest and one of the most widely used
certification tools among the others (Hamedani and Huber 2012), but because it presents
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
72
reasonably balanced coverage for most categories (Haapio 2012). In addition, it advocates
the consideration of sustainability strategies at the earliest stage of the design process in
order to inform the development process (Sharifi and Marayama 2015).
Nevertheless, there is a need for further research, because BC is still not easy to access in
both theory and practice (Kyrkou and Karthaus 2011). However, it can be noted that BC gives
developers and local authorities a clear framework within which to demonstrate the
sustainability of a development proposal, where both parties know what to expect and can
easily measure the sustainability outcomes and successes of the development.
As a result of this comparison, it has been decided to select BC for analysis in both theory and
practice. This section of the chapter has discussed the indicators and their relevance for the
social context. This will be followed by a further discussion on the indicators that will be
evaluated in relation to BC, and finally a project case study that has implemented the BC will
then be selected and illustrated.
3.4 Selection of BC Indicators
Matters that are associated with indicators, including coverage and application, are
important for any investigation of NSA tools and their effectiveness throughout the
development process. The relevance of indicators to the various contexts is also an important
matter, as well as the roles of the various scientific and technical expert actors, in particular
with regard to their responsibility in addressing their choices and possible preferences about
embedded predefined categories and indicators (Dewulf et al 2005).
This section will now explain the structure of the BC NSA and explore the selection of the
indicators to be evaluated in the research phases of this work. The BC has five main
categories:
1. Governance
2. Social and economic well-being
3. Resources and energy
4. Land use and ecology
5. Transport and movement.
These are further described in Table 3-4 below.
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
73
Table 3. 4 Five main categories of BC
Categories
Aim
Indicators
Mandatory Optional
Governance GO Addresses community involvement in decisions affecting the design, construction, operation and long-term stewardship of the development
2 2
Social and Economic Well-being
SE Addresses societal and economic factors affecting health and well-being such as inclusive design, cohesion, adequate housing and access to employment
3 14
Resources and Energy
RE Addresses the sustainable use of natural resources and the reduction of carbon emissions
3 4
Land Use and Ecology
LE Addresses sustainable land use and ecological enhancement
1 5
Transport and Movement
TM Addresses the design and provision of transport and movement infrastructure to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport
1 5
As acknowledged in chapter 2, this thesis is researching adaptation in the social context
with the focus on community adaptation, and preparing community members for
adaptation. It is suggested that both governance and local community contexts should work
in parallel to enable this aim to be achieved. Nevertheless, there is a level of ambiguity in
the BC, as in other NSAs, regarding the decision-making process, and the evaluation
strategies followed by planners and decision makers. Throughout the governance process
different categories and indicators are used for the evaluation of social sustainability
(Sharifi and Murayama 2015), and how this issue is associated with the wider governance
of the development is not clear. In order to explore in finer detail, the extent to which
engagement with both governance and community is enabled, it will be necessary to
consider the tool at the indicator level, as described in Table 3-5 below.
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
74
Table 3. 5 Overall BC categories & indicators
Category One: Governance Category Three: Resources and Energy
Indicator_1: Consultation plan
Indicator_2: Consultation and engagement
Indicator_3: Design review
Indicator_4: Community management of facilities
Indicator_22: Energy strategy
Indicator_23: Existing buildings and infrastructure
Indicator_24: Water strategy
Indicator_25: Sustainable buildings
Indicator_26: Low impact materials
Indicator_27: Resource efficiency
Indicator_28: Transport carbon emissions
Category Two: Social and Economic Well-being Category Four: Land Use and Ecology
Indicator_5: Demographic needs and priorities
Indicator_6 : Adapting to Climate Change
Indicator_7: Flood risk assessment
Indicator_8: Microclimate
Indicator_9: Flood risk management
Indicator_10: Delivery of services, facilities and
amenities
Indicator_11: Utilities
Indicator_12: Public realm
Indicator_13: Inclusive design
Indicator_14: Housing provision
Indicator_15: Green infrastructure
Indicator_16: Local vernacular
Indicator_17: Noise pollution
Indicator_18: Local parking
Indicator_19: Light pollution
Indicator_20: Economic impact
Indicator_21: Labour and skills
Indicator_29: Ecology strategy
Indicator_30: Land use
Indicator_31: Water pollution
Indicator_32: Enhancement of ecological value
Indicator_33: Landscape
Indicator_34: Rainwater harvesting
Category Five: Transport and Movement
Indicator_35: Transport assessment
Indicator_36: Safe and appealing streets
Indicator_37: Cycling network
Indicator_38: Access to public transport
Indicator_39: Cycling facilities
Indicator_40: Public transport
As can be understood from this table, the first category ‘Governance’ focuses on
governance issues, while the second category ‘Social and Economic Well-being’ focuses on
the communities themselves and their needs and well-being through considering the
effects of risks, Climate Change impacts, delivery of facilities and built environment, and
the natural environment. The remaining three categories focus on the physical strategies
and they do not constitute explicit links to the social context, and are therefore considered
beyond the scope and focus of this work. These three categories relate to the performance
of the physical amenities and services in the neighbourhood regarding the post-occupancy
stage and need to be considered in further studies. In this research the main focus, as
demonstrated in chapter 2, is on the community as an important element that needs to be
involved in the governance process and in the management processes as well.
Furthermore, it should be said here, that there are some indicators that also focus on the
economic context, which are beyond the scope of this work. It is generally acknowledged
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
75
that the NSA frameworks provide a more holistic approach to sustainable development
through covering the three pillars of sustainability (environmental, social & economic),
though they have been accused of favouring the environmental aspects, and they
particularly lack the focus on the economic aspects (Sullivan et al 2014; Sharifi and
Murayam 2014).
Accordingly, it can be noted that two main categories correspond most closely to the focus
on the social context adopted here:
- Governance
- Social and Economic Well-being
The next section aims to explore the contents of the two socially relevant categories and
evaluate their importance to the research being undertaken here. Mainly, these two
categories and their constituted indicators are considered important as main important
categories for the case study context that is selected for this research. It is argued that
MediaCity is considered as an important case study that has applied the BREEAM
Communities in UK, and has achieved excellent rank according to this tool. MediaCityUK is
an exemplar of BREEAM Communities as it has embodied BREEAM principles from the outset
across this city’s buildings, education, health to achieve a truly leading-edge modern low
carbon and environmentally friendly city.
In this project, there is a focus and an aim to promote sustainable communities through
providing better quality of life and meeting the needs of the local community in better well-
big and choices in the development in the present and future, and increase the interaction
between the community and the real estate development with providing the skills and jobs
required for the community (Arayici et al 2010). In this project, there are various strategies
that are applied to make effective use of natural resources, enhance the environment and to
address sustainability strategies, regarding the transportation, energy, and water. Moreover,
it is mentioned that the developer of the project is giving importance to the social issues
regarding to neighbourhood and considers the benefits of the local community, and creates
recreational facilities on the project site (Arayici et al 2010). Further It should be mentioned
that one of the most important priorities for the MediaCity development is to focus on the
issues that promote stronger communities and build a secure and sustainable environment;
in which this has been addressed through setting the objectives such as: make communities
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
76
safer from various risks, build more cohesive, empowered and active communities, and
Improve outcomes for various divisions of the communities, particularly for the students and
learners (Ozturk et al 2010). However, there is a need to investigate the performance of the
various indicators of BC in a case study context, particularly regarding the social context and
the overall governance process that influence the sustainability and adaptation of
community towards the CC.
3.4.1 Governance indicators
This category addresses the theoretical involvement of the various actors, including the
local communities, in decisions affecting the design, construction, operation and long-term
stewardship of a development being undertaken under the influence of the BC tool.
As stated previously, under each category there are a number of indicators that promote
and enable achievement of the main aims of each category. It can be argued that any tool
for sustainability that does not sufficiently consider the substantial linkage between
components will have weak capacity to guide strategies and planning decisions to approach
and deliver urban or community sustainability (Davidson and Venning 2011). Therefore,
investigation of this matter within and between these indicators will enable understanding
of the potential of the tool itself also to promote adaptive capacity.
For this context in BC, the relevant category is termed ‘Governance’ under which there are
four main indicators:
1. Consultation Plan
2. Consultation and Engagement
3. Design Review
4. Community Management of Facilities
Only the first two indicators of this category: ‘Consultation Plan’ and ‘Consultation and
Engagement’ are mandatory while the other two indicators are optional, as Table 3-6
demonstrates.
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
77
Table 3. 6 Governance_ category context and indicators_ BC
The two indicators of ‘Consultation Plan’ and ‘Consultation and Engagement’ are associated
with decision-making and the actor engagement process. They both aim to confirm that the
ideas, needs and the knowledge of the community are adopted within the engagement of
other actors to enhance the design process through ensuring the incorporation of local
knowledge. These mandatory indicators are considered important for the analysis
associated with the Adaptive Governance theoretical approach themes and characteristics
identified in chapter 2, as they both consider the focus on the engagement of the various
actors and their collaboration, knowledge sharing and transfer. They also enable the main
discussion that revolves around the application of the physical strategies among the various
actors. So, understanding these actors as having intermediary and/or meditating roles is
necessary. How and to what extent these things are addressed according to these indicators
in theory and practice will be investigated as a part of the research.
Indicator_3: Design Review is an optional indicator that aims to address the achievement
of healthy and functional development for the community through the planning and design
process, with a focus on communication and feedback among the potentially intermediate
actors and through reviewing of decisions.
Finally, Indicator_4: Community Management of Facilities is also optional, and aims to
ensure the active incorporation of the local communities in the management process of the
facilities in their neighbourhood.
These two optional indicators are very important for the identified AG themes and
characteristics regarding the review of decisions that influence people’s lives and the
sustainable performance management processes and outcomes for the communities.
Category Indicators Optional/Mandatory Reference
Governance
Indicator_1
Consultation Plan Mandatory GO01
Indicator_2 Consultation and Engagement
Mandatory GO02
Indicator_3 Design Review Optional GO03
Indicator_4 Community Management of Facilities
Optional
GO04
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
78
3.4.2 Community indicators
In BC, the focus on the community, the social context, is represented by the category called
‘Social and Economic Well-being’. This addresses both the societal and economic factors
affecting communities’ quality of life and their well-being, such as social cohesion, and
economic well-being regarding adequate housing and access to employment.
NSA tools in general cover the communities’ involvement across the development stages and
also their health and well-being through the application of the categories and indicators that
address environmental and resource management. In other words, social sustainability has
been linked to these tools in an indirect way, as secondary aspects of a range of indicators
(Reith and Orova 2015).
Table 3. 7 Social and Economic Well-Being Context Indicators in BC
Indicators Optional/Mandatory Reference
Group 1 Preparation for CC Impacts
Flood Risk Assessment Mandatory FRA
Adapting to Climate Change Optional ACC
Microclimate Optional M
Flood Risk Management Optional FRM
Group 2 Communities’ Satisfaction and Well-being
Demographic Needs and Priorities Mandatory DNP
Delivery of Services, Facilities and Amenities
Optional DSFA
Utilities Optional U
Green Infrastructure Optional GI
Local Parking Optional LP1
Local Vernacular Optional LV
Housing Provision Optional HP
Inclusive Design Optional ID
Public Realm Optional PR
Light Pollution Optional LP
Noise Pollution Mandatory NP
For the category of Social and Economic Well-being, Table 3-7 shows 15 of the 17 indicators.
Two of the 17 indicators have been excluded – Economic Impact and Labour and Skills4 – as
4 Economic Impact and Labour and Skills focus on the economic well-being through ensuring the development
attracts inward investment and employment opportunities respectively.
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
79
they have a focus on economics and are less likely to be explicitly relevant to this research.
It can be noted, however, that despite the category having a stated economic focus, there
is a clear lack in the overall indicators of this category, or regarding the contents of the
indicators themselves. In particular the two identified indicators are optional. Elsewhere it
has been argued that BC does not set guidelines for the development economics of a site,
as this remains the responsibility of the local authority and the developer and as such is
considered to lay outside of the BC enabled processes (Arayici et al 2010).
The focus on the social aspects, in association with community and addressing resilience to
Climate Change, is related to the importance given to community needs and demands,
preparedness to adapt to risks, and their interaction with the facilities, as well as their
satisfaction.
For Preparation for Climate Change impacts there are four indicators that focus on the
importance of the adaptation to Climate Change and potential risks. It has been noted that
for both BC and other NSAs, as well as other building and urban tools, flooding is the most
well incorporated of all the hazards (Matthews et al 2014).
These indicators are:
1. Flood risk assessment: the indicator aims to ensure that suitable measures are
employed to reduce flood risks
2. Adapting to Climate Change: aims to address the protection of the development
from existing and currently predicted impacts of Climate Change
3. Microclimate: to ensure the development provides a comfortable outdoor
environment through the control of general climatic conditions
4. Flood risk management: the indicator focuses on minimising localised floods on
site through prevention and reduction of rainfall flow to the water courses and
the public sewage systems.
For Communities’ Satisfaction and Well-being there are number of indicators that focus
on the performance of facilities and the environmental influences, comprising 11
indicators.
These indicators are:
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
80
1. Demographic needs and priorities: to address the local needs and priorities based
on the planning issues of housing, services and other facilities within the
development.
2. Delivery of services, facilities and amenities: to affirm that the basic and
fundamental services and facilities are delivered to the communities.
3. Utilities: to provide easy access to site services and communications
infrastructure, with minimal disruption and need for reconstruction, and to allow
for future growth in services.
4. Inclusive design: to create an inclusive community by encouraging the
construction of a built environment that optimises accessibility for as many
current and future residents as possible.
5. Housing provision: to minimise social inequalities and foster a socially inclusive
community by ensuring appropriate housing provision within the development.
6. Green infrastructure: to ensure access to high-quality space in the natural
environment and/or urban green infrastructure for all.
7. Public realm: to encourage social interaction by creating comfortable and vibrant
spaces in the public realm.
8. Local vernacular: to ensure that the development relates to local character while
reinforcing its own identity.
9. Noise pollution: to ensure that the development is designed to mitigate the
impacts of noise. This includes mitigation from existing sources of noise, reducing
potential noise conflicts between future site occupants, and protecting nearby
noise-sensitive areas from noise sources associated with the new development.
10. Local parking: to ensure parking is appropriate for the expected users and well
integrated into the development.
11. Light pollution: to ensure that lighting on the development site is designed to
reduce light pollution.
3.5 Selection of Project Case Study
It is acknowledged that NSAs, including BC, continue to gain ground as tools for guiding
sustainability, and that further case studies on the practice of NSA are recommended in order
to reveal the context-specificities of different regions (Sharifi and Murayama 2015). As
already noted, the empirical aspects of NSA have received very little attention in the
literature. Such case studies could provide evidence that might be used to examine the
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
81
feasibility of applying these assessment tools in the real world (Sharifi and Murayam 2013).
As already discussed, BC is applied during the early planning and design stages of a
development ‘‘It offers a holistic framework with which to frame key indicators that assist
decision makers to better understand and improve upon the impact their decisions will have
upon the longer term environmental, social and economic aspects of the development’’
(http://www.breeam.com/communities).
BC has been widely applied in various projects in the UK, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
For instance, the projects of Garitage Park in Bulgaria and Gardabaer in Urridaholt/ Iceland,
as Figure 3-1 demonstrates.
Figure 3. 1: Examples of two community projects certified by BREEAM Communities (A & B)
It is important to ensure an effective case study design (Yin 1999) to investigate and evaluate
certain characteristics for the identification of the priorities that should be explored and
enhanced.
The MediaCity project has been awarded the status of the first sustainable community in the
UK by BREEAM Communities 2012. It is acknowledged that the project is considered to be
important through its development process, for the communities who study, work and live
in the projects, and for their present and future needs (www.mediacityuk.co.uk). It is
designated as a regeneration project because it aims to transform the brownfield site located
in the Salford Quays region into an iconic development that has the potential to add value to
the surrounding area (Arayici 2014). It represents a regeneration project located in Salford
Quays, Manchester (Figure 3-2) and aims to become one of the most modern areas in Greater
Manchester (Sharifi and Murayama 2015).
(A) Garitage Park, Bulgaria
(B) Urridaholt, Gardabaer, Iceland
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
82
Figure 3. 2: Salford Quays in Manchester – (Binder and Knowles 2012)
Here the exemplar case study is used, which is associated with the intentional choice of the
participants who have certain roles in the development process. In adopting the exemplar
methodology, the researcher knows the sample of the participants or the actors that are part
of the development process. Participants are chosen based on their possession of
characteristics important for the investigation of the phenomena of interest (Bronk 2012). In
this research, this implies the application of certain sustainability indicators and associated
actors, promoting adaptation to CC and building adaptive capacity for the communities, in
order to face the CC impacts and potential risks. So, the choice of the case study as BREEAM
Communities should demonstrate the potentials of this tool, compared with the other NSA
tools.
The application of the BC tool across the governance process of this sustainable project and
the inclusion of the community as important participants makes the selection of both
community and experts two important groups of samples in the study to be undertaken here.
As Fitzpatrick (2004) argues, in an exemplar case study, it is important to develop an
understanding of the stakeholders’ differences in terms of their roles and their involvement
in the development process, in order to understand the advantages and the disadvantages
behind this differing involvement. Therefore, this kind of case study is important for
investigating the evaluation of a certain system or actors in a certain phenomenon.
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
83
‘‘We were awarded the status of the first sustainable community in the world by BREEAM in
2011 – one of our most innovative measures was the delivery of our own tri-generation power
plant which helps to heat, cool and power the buildings at the heart of MediaCity/UK’’
(www.mediacityuk.co.uk).
3.6 Development
This development project constitutes a total of 200 acres (81 ha) of land assigned for the
development of MediaCity (MediaCity Planning Guidance, 2007), with seven phases, as
shown in Figure 3-3. The first phase comprises over 36 acres (14.5 ha) and has been awarded
the BC Excellent certification (Sharifi and Murayama 2015). It is located on the waterfront in
Salford Quays, Manchester, and media companies are central to its delivery (Arayici and
Ozturk 2014).
In May 2007, a second round of culturally led regeneration commenced in the Salford Quays
development, with the confirmation that five of the BBC’s key departments would move from
London to a new home in Salford Quays, ensuring the future of ‘MediaCityUK’. At its 2011
opening, MediaCityUK will house one million square feet of commercial space with a clear
focus on the digital and creative industries, as well as residential, retail and public spaces for
thousands of residents. However, a year before the official opening, proprietors of the
MediaCity development already stressed that “the site being developed for 2011 only
represents about one fifth of the total land available – there’s actually potential to utilise up
to 200 acres” (Slee et al 2010). This reinforces the idea that the evaluation work being
undertaken here and the role that BC has played this far – is just the start of the regeneration
story planned for this site.
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
84
Figure 3. 3: Phase one of MediaCity
Source: https://www.chapmantaylor.com/projects/mediacityuk#&gid=1&pid=9
3.6.1 Physical layout and location
MediaCityUK is located in Salford Quays at the head of the Manchester Ship Canal, on part
of the site of the former Manchester Docks, Pier 9, in Salford and at Trafford Wharf in the
Trafford Park Industrial Estate immediately across from the Ship Canal as shown in Figure 3-
4 (Knowles and Binder 2014).
Figure 3. 4: Salford Quays location
(Knowles and Binder 2012)
Situated within the Manchester Regional Centre, The Quays (Salford Quays and Trafford
Wharfside) function as Greater Manchester’s waterfront and has been the catalyst for
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
85
regeneration within the western gateway to Manchester over the last 20 years. Quays Point
is the last undeve loped part of the former Manchester Docks. Figure 3-5 shows the road
planning that radiates from the waterfront in this development.
Figure 3. 5: Typically, the road and public realm areas should radiate from the waterfront, with larger development plots to the north of Quays Point (Arayici and Ozturk 2014)
3.6.2 Physical layout
The first stage of the project includes the following developments on the initial 36-acre site
(www.mediacityuk.co.uk):
• Office space – 700,000 sq ft (65,032 sq m) (spread across five buildings)
• Studio block – 250,000 sq ft (23,225 sq m)
• Retail/leisure space – 80,000 sq ft (7,432 sq m) (divided into units)
• 378 apartments (divided between two towers)
• 218 bed hotel
• Five-acre public realm area, including piazza for 4,000 people.
The apartment buildings in MediaCity are illustrated in Figure 3-6 below.
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
86
Figure 3. 6: The housing apartments (Photo by author)
This first phase also comprises new public spaces, a new Metrolink station and a pedestrian
footbridge across the Manchester Ship Canal (http://www.mediacityuk.co.uk). Figure 3-7
shows the bridges in MediaCity. The project also comprises 300 cycle bays and a multi-storey
car park with approximately 2,200 spaces (Ozturk et al 2010).
Figure 3. 7: Bridges in Media City (Photo by author)
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
87
It is recognised that in Media City during the development process, it was challenging for the
designers and engineers to deliver a landscape for people and tourists in the middle of
extensive underground communications and the other restrictions on the site
(www.gillespies.co.uk). The landscape was designed for pedestrians and aimed to create one
of the UK’s largest shared surface environments by incorporating sustainable design
principles. The landscape aimed to support this by including over 200 new deciduous and
evergreen trees (www.gillespies.co.uk).
For the future development phases of the project, it is reported that the second phase is in
development: "Phase two will provide a unique opportunity for a new generation of designs
to complement what is already a thriving and vibrant destination. Like any city, we continue
to grow in line with the needs of business – today’s plans show the huge potential for the
MediaCityUK of 2026" Stephen Wild, Managing Director, MediaCityUK.
The new public realm and landscape provided in the phase two masterplan again aims to
offer a rich mix of public and private spaces, with an ambition that community-based
interaction should be at its centre through providing space. Located at the heart of the
development, the largest public space - Market Square – aims to provide a dynamic and
flexible space incorporating a contemporary market hall and event space, with the intention
that these are “animated by restaurants, shops and apartments” (www.mediacityuk.co.uk).
Figure 3-8 shows phase two of MediaCity, comprising the main community building centre.
The phase two site, for which planning permission has now been granted, extends across
eight plots on the north-eastern part of the site and will provide over 50,000 sq m of business
accommodation, over 4,000 sq m of live/work units, 1,871 residential units including town
houses, over 4,400 sq m of retail and leisure space and over 1,800 car parking spaces. Each
plot has been designed by a different architect, with a sixth firm co-ordinating the overall
layout (www.mediacityuk.co.uk):
Among the plans are:
• The Arcade – retail/leisure and office space around a pedestrian arcade with office
space above
• Studio Square – office building and pocket park
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
88
• Georgian Square – a new public courtyard, a six-storey podium on top of which would
be two slender taller buildings of 14 and 25 storeys with residents’ terraces and winter
gardens, and 18 three-storey live/work units and separate commercial office space
• Market Square – a contemporary ‘village hall’ with seating for dining and square for
markets and events
• London Square – 14 three-storey town houses with 460 apartments on the upper
floors, and gym, cinema room and shared office space
• Northern Edge – a new ‘gateway’ to MediaCityUK comprising three buildings with 632
apartments, six two-storey live/work units, office space, retail and leisure uses, a cycle
hub and three multistorey car parks
Figure 3. 8: Phase two in Media City
Source: https://www.gillespies.co.uk/news/mediacityuk-phase-2-plans-given-go-ahead
Finally, another phase is planned which will comprise 1,036 apartments covering an area of
approximately 544,820 sq ft, MediaCity will form the largest residential development in the
north-west. This proposed development will consist of four iconic towers, each containing a
mixture of studios, 1, 2- and 3-bedroom apartments, see figure (3-9).
(https://www.thepropertysupplier.co.uk/property-details/37/manchester-/salford-1)
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
89
Figure 3. 9(a & b): Phase three of MediaCity
Source: https://www.thepropertysupplier.co.uk/property-details/37/manchester-/salford-1
Figure 3.9(c): Phase three of MediaCity
Source: https://www.e-architect.co.uk/manchester/media-city-salford
3.6.3 Importance
According to the 2015 Index, Salford is ranked as the sixteenth-most-deprived local authority
in England, in terms of the proportion (28.7%) of neighbourhoods falling within the most-
deprived decile nationally, 4 % (3 ranks) improvement from the 2010 Index (DCLG 2015).
Deprivation in Salford is very much concentrated on income and the employment problems
of its neighbourhoods, with a respective deprivation rank of fifteenth and nineteenth
nationally. The place suffers less severely from other forms of deprivation such as those
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
90
measures associated with housing, education, crime and living environment when compared
against the national context (www.trafford.gov.uk). This project is not only addressing the
targets of environmental sustainability, but it has the potential to have a positive social
impact on the local community of the neighbourhood, in addition to its ambition to be
considered as a project that aims to transform the look of the Salford Quays waterfront
(Arayici and Ozturk 2014). Figure (3-10) shows this iconic project.
It was intended to embody sound environmental practices through design, construction and
operation, providing opportunities for local economic growth and sustainable living as well
as flexibility for future growth (Ozturk2 et al 2010). Furthermore, it has been argued that the
project is has many reasons behind its construction, economic, environmental and social.
MediaCity is an exemplar of BC as it has embodied BREEAM principles from the outset across
its buildings (offices, studios, car parks, retail, residential, hotels, education, health) in order
to deliver what is considered by BRE to be “a truly leading-edge modern low carbon,
environmentally friendly city” (www.BRE.org).
Figure 3. 10: The iconic sustainable MediaCity project
Source: https://www.chapmantaylor.com/projects/mediacityuk
3.6.4 Policy
MediaCityUK is considered to be an example of sustainable regeneration on a large scale,
where, it is considered as a purpose-built home for creative and digital business (Arayici
2014) and is one of the first developments to use the new BC methodology.
Our client Peel Media had seen the benefit of BREEAM in the design and construction
of each building on the new MediaCityUK – Peel have committed to BREEAM targets
on every building across the development – and were keen to extend this approach
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
91
across the site to achieve a truly environmentally friendly regeneration of a former
dockland site alongside the Manchester Ship Canal in Salford’ (www.MediaCity.com).
Salford City Council played an important role in supporting the development of MediaCityUK
through the provision of opportunities for creating a different and better community, not
only through the focus on infrastructure, but through creating a better quality of life,
accessibility to resources and job opportunities for local residents. The idea behind the
project was to create a sustainable community that can raise the experience across the whole
of Salford (http://www.salford.gov.uk/mediacityuk.htm).
This city council policy promotes MediaCityUK as suitable for the development of a vibrant
mixed-use area with a broad range of uses and activities (Ozturk et al 2010). It identified uses
for the area including: housing, offices, tourism (including hotels), leisure, cultural uses,
education, community facilities, retail and food and drink uses (subject to compliance with
associated retail and leisure policies), knowledge-based employment (including live-work
units), and essential infrastructure and support facilities. The guidance note entitled
‘Encouraging Better Design’ explains that the council is committed to securing high-quality
design in all new developments across the city. It states that poor design is a valid reason for
the refusal of planning permission (www.trafford.gov.uk). The Salford City Council aims to
transform Central Salford over the next 20 years, guided by a new vision and regeneration
framework. It intends to unlock hundreds of millions of pounds of private sector investment
leading to thousands of new job opportunities for the area (www.salford.gov.uk).
3.6.5 Governance process
MediaCity is mainly being developed and managed by Peel Holdings, Salford City Council, and
a range of other actors (Ozturk et al 2010; Knowles and Binder). Salford City Council and Peel
are working collaboratively to produce a masterplan for MediaCity regarding the
regeneration process of the central part of Salford (www.trafford.gov.uk).
It is argued that the role of Peel is very important to support the application of sustainability
strategies in the MediaCity project (Arayici et al 2010). Peel5 has an important role in ensuring
that the development integrates environmental management and sustainability measures
5 Peel is one of the leading infrastructure, transport and real estate investors in the UK. It has grown through an ethos of recycling capital and long-term investment, gaining a reputation for visionary regeneration projects, primarily in the North of England (https://www.peel.co.uk).
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
92
throughout its planning, design and construction. The role of architects in the governance
process is crucial in leading the design of MediaCity. The Peel Group and Chapman Taylor,
the leading architectural design company for this project, collaborate to continue with the
delivery of the sustainability community in this project, in the design of buildings, and the
development of residential units for a better quality of life for those in the community
(https://www.chapmantaylor.com/projects/mediacityuk).
There are challenges associated with the implementation of large-scale projects such as
MediaCity, and the efforts that are applied to address the sustainability strategies and
targets, and some might be considered as impediments for the sustainable development of
such projects (Gorod et al 2014). MediaCity has involved a wide range of specialists to date,
who were/are varied in their expertise, educational background, professional skills, and
working environment. However, it is argued that the role of BC was itself an important part
of the governance process, especially regarding the application of the sustainability
strategies and the process of making these strategies comprehensible to the other actors in
the governance process. The role of BC is to help the developers, local authorities and design
teams promote the process of applying the sustainability measures in the neighbourhood
scale (www.BREEAM.org/Communities).
So, with the inclusion of a wide range of actors, these challenges are mainly associated with
the exchange of information and communication among this wide range of participants; a
situation that can lead to many mistakes that can be difficult to be solved and also expensive,
as Gorod et al (2014) have argued.
However, for the communication among actors regarding sustainability strategies, the role
of BC is likely to be influential. It enables both planners and developers to set and agree on
appropriate targets for developments, and its targets are based on key sustainability
objectives and core planning policy requirements, adapted for the specific development and
its surrounding area (Arayici et al 2010).
The process of inclusion embedded within BC has a specific relevance in its application as a
dialogue tool to provide the local authority, planners and developers with the importance of
sustainability measures and ensure that planning policy requirements are clearly indicated
and ensured (Arayici et al 2010). However, the extent to which BC is influencing the
incorporation of the actors’ collaboration, communication and learning about sustainability
is still unclear in current literature, and thus requires further investigation. In other words,
the potential for the role of BC as an intermediary party is still not clear, particularly regarding
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
93
the extent to which intermediary themes and characteristics as identified in chapter 2, are
extant and enabled in the BC process.
BC is considered an important factor in applying sustainability measures, where, it is argued
that its process can be vital in focusing action on setting sustainability measures,
commitments and agreement during the planning process (www.breeam.org/). However, it
remains unclear about the extent to which it also supports and promotes effective ways of
communicating with or identifying the role of its constituent actors. As argued in the
literature, there is still a need to establish how BC can work effectively as an intermediary or
mediator in the wider planning context, in particular in relation to promoting the inclusion of
wider actors’ participation (Sullivan et al 2014). There are gaps in both policy and academic
research regarding this issue. Research studies on the effects of these tools on their users,
the development process, and the wider social/institutional environment, such as planning,
are relatively scarce (Sullivan et al 2014). Gorod et al (2014) assert that the collaboration
process among the varied parties has not been as effective as it could have been in MediaCity,
particularly regarding the involvement and the agreement of the users and communities in
the main decision-making. For instance, Gorod et al (2014) argued that the inclusion and
engagement of actors in the development process was not effective; moreover, in the
development of various strategies and construction details, the developer and the contractor
both implemented various strategies and accessed the site without the agreement of the
BBC, despite the latter’s involvement and agreement being essential prior to starting the
work.
Therefore, it seems that the local authority, represented in Salford City Council, is having a
central, high-level role in establishing the main strategies for the planning process in
MediaCity. There is support and importance given by the local council to the role of the BC
as a tool that ensures application of sustainability strategies. In addition, regarding the
council’s relation with Peel developers, it is argued that Peel is supporting the application of
the tool, as Arayici et al (2010) have suggested. However, regarding the role of BC actors in
the process of addressing the interaction and collaboration with the developers, as
intermediary actors, this is not yet clear and requires further attention. Figure 3-11 shows
the main actors involved in the governance process of MediaCity and their potential positions
as intermediaries and/or mediators, potentially played by actors associated with the BC
process or indeed by BC itself.
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
94
Figure 3. 11: The main actors in the governance process to address sustainability in MediaCity
It should be said that one other issue needs further research associated with the focus on
the community engagement process in MediaCity. It is argued by Porter et al (2014) that in
the UK context, despite a stated priority for UK local authorities on addressing the various
needs and priorities of the community, research remains lacking in this area, especially in
establishing the extent to and level at which, for instance, the occupants should engage in
the planning and sustainability building process and adaptation. So, despite there being an
explicit ambition for inclusion of the local community in MediaCity as well as engagement in
the governance process, the role of BC in enabling this is in need of further evaluation. In
particular, in terms of the extent to which this has been delivered and its impact on the
development process regarding communication and collaboration with the local community.
3.6.6 Community of MediaCity
It is mentioned earlier that the project is known to be the first development to obtain
BREEAM Sustainable Community certification. As such it could be expected that the
community is central to the project. As mentioned earlier, BC places specific importance,
when compared with other NSAs, on the community regarding engagement and
management issues. MediaCity, reportedly, uniquely embodies sound environmental
practices throughout its planning, design, construction and operation to provide sustainable
living for the communities (Ozturk et al 2010; Arayici et al 2010).
Developer
Local Planning Council
Local Community
Environmental Agency/ External Go.
Architects & Engineers
National Government
Local Community I?
I?
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
95
Notably, the local planning authority in Salford has a stated vision for making community
needs and sustainability living a core adopted strategy, referred to as a ‘Sustainable
Community Strategy’ (Chilaka 2011). This strategy comprises a focus on covering the key
themes that relate to community development and sustainability, regarding community
connection, health and well-being, and learning aspects (Chilaka 2011). Ozturk et al (2010)
reported that this is expected to lead to raised community pride, enhanced social capital and
positive mental and psychological health impacts.
It has been argued by its developers and promoters that this project aims to be an iconic
neighbourhood, where people want to live and work, now and in the future; indeed, it has
strived to be a purpose built, well planned, and environmentally friendly neighbourhood that
meets the diverse needs of the future occupants regarding many aspects, such as health and
well-being, facilities, parking and sustainable development targets (Ozturk et al 2010).
Therefore, it is important to realise the experiences of those various people when
investigating the sustainability or the adaptation in this project, because they present the
overall picture of MediaCity’s whole community. Indeed, such an evaluation would enable
an understanding of the extent to which such strategies have had, or not had, a substantial
positive and beneficial impact on employees, residents, students, and also the visitors to this
neighbourhood’s facilities and its services (Chilaka 2011).
It should be noted that at the time of undertaking this work, this project was still under
development. In the future, it is expected to potentially accommodate employment
opportunities for 15,500 people, training posts for 1,500 people per year and space for 1,150
media, creative and related businesses (Arayici and Ozturk 2014). According to the Salford
Sustainable Community Strategy, MediaCity is one of the development projects which is
promoted to foster the agenda of making opportunities for community engagement and
recreation, together with employment (Chilaka 2011).
Further, as demonstrated elsewhere, one of the main drivers for this development was the
creation of a built neighbourhood area for national broadcasting companies including the
BBC (Arayici and Ozturk 2014). The BBC moved around 2,500 staff to MediaCityUK, involving
relocating five London-based departments, along with the entire local and network
broadcasting. Figure 3-12 shows some of the departments of the BBC & ITV studios in
MediaCity. The existence of the BBC, ITV, and other media companies is very important in
MediaCity, not least in creating job opportunities for the graduating students of Salford
University and to create a learning environment, an issue that is core to the promotion of
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
96
communication and learning in the site. These matters, as acknowledged in chapter 2, are
central to building community resilience. In addition, having the BBC and media communities
at the same site with the students’ communities is also important for the creation of local
jobs and local employment opportunities, central for the realisation of anticipated economic
benefits, although, as stated previously, economics of sustainability development are not
within the scope of this work.
Figure 3. 12: BBC & ITV studios in Media City (Photo by author)
Core to the development of MediaCity was also an ambition that it should not be isolated
from the other parts of Salford and Manchester, including its deprived surrounding areas. As
such, for the local and wider communities there are recreational and leisure facilities, such
as piazza, quays and other areas, that have potentially strong positive impacts for wider
community cohesion and enhancement of well-being and lifestyle (Ozturk et al 2010). Figure
3-13 shows the Lowry outlet shopping centre and the big open space that has been used to
host large-scale social events and activities that are important for the community of
MediaCity and its environs. These facilities are also considered important to attract the
visitors and tourists to this project as well (Ozturk et al 2010).
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
97
Figure 3. 13: Lowry outlets and the open space that is used for the social events and activities for MediaCity community & visitors (Photo by author)
In addition to employees and wider community, students are also considered to form an
important component of the MediaCity community. The University of Salford has a
reasonably large presence in MediaCity, with a new modern campus for more than 800
students and staff. The university’s role in MediaCity is important in promoting opportunities
for community development, through enabling skills and creating jobs for local people in
order to broaden the focus of the project beyond the external perception of media and
business interests (Ozturk et al 2010). As was acknowledged in chapter 2, in order to achieve
promotion of resilient communities and achieve sustainable outcomes, the process of
inclusion of the wider community members in the planning as well as in the post-occupancy
stage is important. Moreover, as discussed earlier, there is a synergy between the university
and the media businesses supporting both the students’ needs and development as a main
part of the sustainable community as well as promoting the sustainability of the national
broadcast institutions themselves. Figure 3-14 shows Salford University building in Media
City.
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
98
Figure 3. 14: Salford University in MediaCity (Photo by author)
Despite the focus on the community of MediaCity regarding the incorporation of the wide
range of sustainability measures and the neighbourhood as a whole, it is suggested that there
is still a need for further enhancement regarding the social part, in the matters that relate to
housing, health, or parking. Sharifi and Murayam (2014) identified a striking issue that is
negatively associated with the creation of an inclusive community regarding the capability of
the residents in MediaCity to afford housing in the development, despite BC having a main
focus on appropriate housing provision as an indicator that is applied to ensure that there is
consideration of this matter. In addition, Salford City Council has reportedly made great
efforts towards promoting sustainable community values and a better quality of life,
particularly in the housing sector (Ozturk et al 2010).
Chilaka (2011) also mentioned that in MediaCity, there are concerns that affect people’s well-
being and health in a negative way. Concerns have arisen about safety in public places,
including the piazzas and playgrounds, particularly during social gatherings and events
relating to the protection of people from crime or attack, as well as other safety issues
associated with risks of people falling into the water and drowning, during sport and other
activities.
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
99
3.6.7 The importance of water sustainability
It should be noted that of all of the factors associated with sustainable environmental
performance, this project is regarded as particularly important for water sustainability.
MediaCityUK is a 220-ha waterfront development at the site of the former Manchester Docks
in Salford Quays. The water supply and demand strategies have taken into account the
implications of future growth of the development, including consideration of Climate Change
impacts (Final Water Resources Management Plan 2014). As is typical for such a large-scale
project within the UK planning system, the plans for water sustainability and adaptation
throughout the development were discussed with the Environment Agency to ensure that
any key issues or concerns were addressed, and methodologies were agreed on (Final Water
Resources Management Plan 2014).
Further, for setting the plan for the future forecast growth in demands for water and how
this will be met over the next 25 years, Peel are working with the developers to encourage
water efficiency from the outset, building in efficiency in the design at an early stage (Final
Water Resources Management Plan 2014).
3.7 Sub-Conclusion
This chapter aimed to explain the selection of BREEAM Communities for the evaluation
process as a tool that could enable adaptation in the social context through its indicators at
the neighbourhood scale. It briefly reviewed the strength and weakness of BC based on the
literature, in association with the importance of this tool for promoting sustainability of
communities and governance compared with LEED-ND & CASBEE-UD. Through this process
of selection, some gaps have already been identified regarding the relatively weak coverage
of the social aspects of sustainability in all of these tools, in common with other
neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools. The BREEAM Communities indicators that
are associated with the social context have been selected as having the potential to address
adaptation with respect to the three identified theoretical approaches selected to inform
the evaluation framework in chapter 2.
It has been argued that case studies enable the investigation of the various issues through
detailed contextual analysis regarding the main involved actors and their roles, and with
understanding the various influenced conditions and their relationships (Zainal 2007). It is
demonstrated in this chapter that the case study is considered as an exemplar case study
regarding the focus on understanding a certain issue and the actors’ behaviours and
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
100
perceptions that influenced by this issue. The exemplar methodology is a sample selection
technique that involves the intentional selection of individuals, groups, or entities that
exemplify the construct of interest in a developed manner (Bronk 2012). It constitutes a
detailed examination of a single example, and the study of a single example can provide a
hypothesis, which can be tested systematically (Flyvbjerg 2006).
For this research MediaCityUK was selected, not only because of its status as the first project
in the world to have applied this tool, but due to the main aspects central to its development
associated with community development and sustainability in Salford and the UK. In
addition, achieving an ‘Excellent’ rating through the tool certification process, suggests that
its ambitions align closely with those of the tool. Yet, there is little information in the
academic literature and policy about this project nor its performance in theory or in practice.
It is acknowledged that the selection of the case study represents an exemplar case study, in
which the samples of the actors, of the experts and the community are identified for the
investigation process. For the MediaCity case study as an example here, the investigation of
the BREEAM Communities application process as an exemplary of the evaluation process to
examine the contextual factors associated with the role of experts.
This chapter then moved towards identifying the linkages between BREEAM Communities
and the other actors in the process, through the context of the MediaCity case study, and
then to providing a description of this project and its context. The MediaCity development is
used as an exemplar case study to evaluate and analyse the social and governance context,
and the extent that the BREEAM Communities tool influences actors and indicators towards
addressing adaptation to Climate Change. The research analyses the context, purpose and
the main involved actors, and how these are influenced by the methods used (Fitzpatrick
2004), using interviews and questionnaires as main practical methods. Therefore, the
practical evaluation of BREEAM Communities influence on addressing adaptation is in need
of investigation using practical methods, for both the governance actors and community
individuals.
In general, BREEAM Communities resembles the LEED-ND and CASBEE-UD regarding the
need for more investigation about the issues that are associated with community
engagement and management during the development planning stages and after occupancy.
With the absence of community/occupant consultation and on-going engagement with
developments, this is particularly lacking in the neighbourhood sustainability assessment
tools coverage and specification process (Schweber 2013). In association with the local
Chapter 3: Selection of Case Study
101
communities, it is still not clear to what extent BREEAM Communities connects the local
community and the experts to inform a vital part in decision-making and planning. In
particular, the interconnection with the local community to make them a valid part in the
development process is still in need of further investigation. Therefore, it is a vital matter to
investigate the delivery of the main theoretical themes and characteristics among the local
community that were identified in the previous chapter, in the sustainable neighbourhood
that is certified by BREEAM Communities.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
102
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the means by which the research methodology for this thesis was
devised. It is divided into three main sections.
Phase 1: The first section offers an analysis of the extent to which BREEAM
Communities’ indicators address the Adaptive Governance, Resilient Communities,
and Intermediaries theoretical approaches. The chosen mechanism for the
application of a matrix approach is also presented to demonstrate the extent to
which the evaluation characteristics are positively or negatively indicated for each of
the relevant BC indicators.
Phase 2: The second section refers to the case study research, with Media City,
Salford, UK, selected as a case study for the practical analysis process. Qualitative
research methods are adopted to utilise the perceptions of both expert and
community actors, which are integrated to inform the findings. The decision to adopt
both of these types of actors’ perceptions was based on the importance of such
analysis in previous studies (e.g. Parry et al 2007) in association with the theoretical
background of the case study in relation to the integrated approaches adopted in
this research.
The methods utilised for this research included questionnaires and focus groups, and
in this section, the structure and content of both questionnaires and focus groups
are explained, describing their relationship with the evaluation framework
developed in chapter 2. Qualitative descriptive analysis using SPSS was utilised to
summarise the questionnaire findings, with NVIVO software used to undertake
content analysis of the findings from the focus groups. The results are combined in a
matrix approach, including expert and community opinions and evaluation of the
BREEAM Communities indicators, to identify those characteristics that have a
negative influence on the delivery of adaptive capacity.
Phase 3: The third section presents proposals for enhancement of the BREEAM
Communities process where Adaptive Governance, Resilient Communities and
Intermediaries characteristics were found to have negative performance that
influenced the role of BC as either an intermediary or mediating party. The validation
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
103
of results through further interviews with experts was also conducted to inform this
final phase of the research.
4.2 Research Structure
Three theoretical approaches, Adaptive Governance (AG), Resilient Communities (RC) and
Intermediaries (I) were identified as being central to the promotion of adaptive capacity in
response to CC. It was further established that Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment
Tools (NSAs) have the potential to integrate these three theoretical approaches in a social
context at the neighbourhood scale. Nine main themes and 20 associated characteristics of
AG, RC, and I theoretical approaches were thus established from literature.
The first phase of this study thus aimed to theoretically evaluate these characteristics against
a case study NSA. As argued in chapter three, BREEAM Communities was selected for this
study based on the potential that this tool has shown in both theory and practice. In the
second phase of the work, the impact of integration of a full range of actors’ perspectives on
the results of the application of the NSA to a project was recognised as an important part of
the evaluation process, ensuring that the reality of the application of the tool, including the
impacts of the selection and implementation of indicators, is based on the actors’ own
thinking, values, and experiences (Hyytinen et al 2014). Utilising the perspectives of the
communities that actually live, work, and study in the resulting built environment provide a
vital perspective for this study.
This study adopts a combined approach and seeks to address the research questions through
developing a methodology that combines theoretical evaluation of the NSA’s indicators with
analyses of the actors’ perceptions. The integrated approach offers an analysis of the BC
indicators relating to governance and community levels (23 indicators) as identified in
chapter three. The BC theoretical indicators’ performance, experts’ perceptions, and
community perceptions of Media City are thus analysed in relation to the AG, RC, and I
characteristics. Figure 4-1 more clearly outlines the integrated methodology used.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
104
Figure 4. 1: The research methods applied
4.3 Phase 1: Evaluation of the Theoretical Adaptive Capacity enabled by
BREEAM Communities’ Indicators in the Social Context
It has been argued in the literature that there is a need to discover the measured issues and
this is the purpose of NSA indicators (Orova and Reith 2013). Analysing the indicators’ role as
main components of NSA tools, and examining how they are applied, can thus provide
various options for the delivery of both sustainability and resilience (Tyler and Moench 2012).
It appears, however, that in the context of existing literature, an integration of the methods
for assessing both adaptive capacity and resilience in the context of sustainability assessment
tools has not yet been undertaken.
With regard to resilience and its relationship with sustainability indicators, the performance
analysis of both is important when addressing adaptation. Matthews et al (2014) argued that
Governance Indicators
Integration of Results
Experts & Community
Propositions of implication for enhancement using BC intermediary
Focus on negative performance & Enhancement discussions
Social Adaptation Analysis in BC
Theory: BC tool
Qualitative Methods
Community Indicators
Experts & Community
Governance & community Indicators
Experts & Community
AG
RCF
I
Practice: Actors’ Perceptions
Matrix approach
(-) negative performance
Interviews
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
105
there is a need for an exploration of the connections between resilience and sustainability
indicators. In addition, investigation of sustainable development indicators that may
negatively or positively impact resilience is also warranted.
For this research, the analysis of the 19 selected BC indicators’ performance in relation to the
characteristics of the three theoretical approaches is undertaken by means of a matrix
approach. Danilovic and Sandkull (2005) in particular acknowledge that matrix
representation makes it possible to create a more comprehensive model of the information
flows and interdependency analysis when describing and analysing complex projects.
4.3.1 Phase 1 Method: Matrix Approach
The social context in BC is largely manifest in the two categories: Governance and Social and
Economic Well-being, which have 4 and 15 indicators, respectively.
The application of the three theoretical approaches that were developed in chapter 2 to
evaluate BC indicators was undertaken through the exploration of the linkages between
the established evaluation characteristics and the relevant identified BC indicators.
Through content analysis of the BC documentation, the theoretical ability of each indicator
to address adaptation was thus established.
Sharifi and Yamagata (2016) argued that an exploration of the relationships between
indicators/criteria and resilience characteristics should be undertaken in order to
understand the former’s efficacy. Further, as acknowledged in chapter 2, adaptive capacity
and resilience are two interconnected methods or concepts that are target CC adaptation.
The approach thus advocated for assessing the adaptive capacity of the BC indicators is to
apply not only those characteristics associated with RC but also those that relate to the
other theoretical approaches.
Evaluating the indicators against each of these characteristics in a matrix can thus be useful
to indicate the estimated performance of each indicator in each cell (Fox-Lent et al 2015).
For both positive and negative scenarios, the degree to which each indicator promotes
strategies for CC adaptation, can be differentiated, and some indicators may be found to
show a higher degree of focus in promoting certain evaluation characteristics, while for other
indicators, less focus may emerge. In order to enable the assessment process using the matrix
approach effectively, a scale is applied so that the results of the matrix method application
can be compared, and a combined evaluation across the identified characteristics for each
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
106
theme adopted. Table 4-1 below shows that there are 5 ranks in the scale of assessment
applied, ranging from more positive scenarios, at +2, scaling down to -2, which is associated
with strong hindrance of the adaptation process.
Table 4.1: Proposed categories for the application of a matrix approach method
Positive or Negative
Categories for the resilience assessment framework
Ranks Scale Description for the application in the assessment process
Positive (+): Promote Resilience
• More Potential to Promote Resilience
+2 Where the Indicator has a clear focus on the characteristic to address adaptation
Positive(+): Promote Resilience
• Potential to Promote Resilience
+1 Where the Indicator has a focus on the characteristic to address adaptation
Neutral: Neither Resilience
Promoted nor Hindered
• No Real Potential to Either Promote or Hinder Resilience
0
Where the Indicator has no potential to either support or act against the adaptation characteristic
Negative (-): Hinder Resilience
• Potential to Hinder Resilience
-1 Where the Indicator doesn’t have enough focus on adaptation characteristic
Negative (-): Hinder Resilience
• More Potential to Hinder Resilience
-2 Where the Indicator doesn’t have enough focus on adaptation characteristic
Indicators are thus evaluated as having a positive, neutral, or negative influence on
performance when applied against the 20 characteristics of the three theories (RC, AG, I)
demonstrated in chapter two, (see table 2.10 on page 58). These indicators of BC are the
main target for the evaluation process, and the main documentation used is the manual of
BREEAM Communities (2012). However, other documentation is used relating to key studies
found in the literature review and examples of the sustainability of communities and their
adaptation to CC. These are referred to where appropriate in the evaluation chapter.
The BC manual offers a full description of the indictors of the BC, including implementation
methods, and weighting approaches. For evaluation processes using this method (matrix
approach), where the indicators show a sufficient focus, or information that relates to the
characteristics of the three theories exists in that indicator clearly, the indicator is considered
to have a clear focus on that characteristic with positive performance; that is, it is deemed to
promote resilience. The lower the focus that the indicator has in relation to the investigated
characteristic, the more negative this indicator is deemed to be. Therefore, when an indicator
shows very limited focus on a certain characteristic in the BC documentation, such that it is
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
107
likely to be insufficient to ensure that a project would address this characteristic, then this
indicator is evaluated as having a negative performance; that is, it hinders resilience. The
degree or extent to which the indicators of BC have either positive or negative influence in
relation to the characteristics of the three theories is, therefore, dependent on the extent to
which the focus on each characteristic is manifest in the indicator description in the BC
manual. Where there is a very limited mention or no mention at all for the characteristic in
the BC indicator, this indicator is considered to have negative potential, ranked -1 or -2.
Finally, if the focus of the indicator shows neither a positive or negative influence on the
focus of adaptation to CC regarding the investigated characteristic, the indicator is
considered as having neutral performance and ranked as 0, as shown in the table and in figure
4-2.
4.4 Phase 2: Evaluation of the Practical Application of BC in the Media
City case study
Berardi (2013) suggests that case study research undertaking analysis of the application of
existing NSAs, including BC, in a range of case studies could help researchers to understand
the limits of these tools. The next phase of this research responds to this need by exploring
the practical application of the BREEAM communities NSA to the Media City regeneration
and development project. Further, in line with Few et al’s (2007) call for further work to
explore actors’ participation in this process, this work seeks to apply this important method
in the investigation to practical research.
The inclusion of the responses from a wide range of actors is important for research
associated with CC. However, it is still far from being the focus of much literature associated
with adaptation to CC (Few et al 2007). In order to understand climate adaptation capacity
in asocial context in relation to CC, research must begin to focus on the actors’ perceptions
in order to explore and determine actions and strategies that might be effectively applied to
manage the impacts and the potential risks of CC (Simonsson et al 2011).
It is thus this work’s contention that seeking to achieve an understanding of the actors’
perceptions is very important, as the sustainability development process and adaptation
planning and implementation are highly influenced by the various actors’ opinions and roles.
This also necessitates the incorporation of the views of various experts involved in the
planning and implementation process; however, there is still a lack in this area in the current
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
108
research and literature in the investigation of resilience. For example, Stevenson and
Petrescu (2016) demonstrated the lack of research on the role of designers as important
collaborators in the organisation and capacity-building of resilient communities and on the
processes and strategies associated with neighbourhood resilience.
Thus, the perceptions of both experts and community are deemed highly important for this
investigation into the application of the evaluation characteristics related to the three
theoretical approaches. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are also adopted to
facilitate better investigation of these perceptions.
In terms of the enhanced analysis of BC indicators, integration between the theoretical stage
and the practical stage is needed to decide on the final enhancements needed. Thus, the final
decision regarding the scope and focus of the enhancement process cannot be decided until
a practical evaluation has been undertaken. The discussion of the results and the implications
for enhancement based on both theory and practice is thus important, as it is possible that
the theoretical evaluation of an indicator and characteristic may be negative, while in
practice its characteristic is positive.
Figure 4. 2: Analysis of the matrix approach regarding the relationship between the BC indicators and the characteristics of the AG, RC, and I theories
An example of the application of the matrix approach for the theoretical evaluation of BC
indicators against characteristics associated with a given theme is presented in table 4-2. The
interpretation of the resulting evaluation matrices is undertaken first to identify the
indicators with negative performance. Then, experts and the local communities’
Hinder
(+ve) (-ve)
BREEAM Communities Indicators
AG & RC & I characteristics
Neutral
Governance Context Community Context
Neither Promote nor Hinder
Possible Action: No change in content of the indicators
Possible Action: Edit or add new or replacement Indicator (s)
Promote
BC theoretical indicators analysis Practical analysis (local community & experts)
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
109
identifications of indicators with negative performance are integrated, as table 4.2 shows.
Then, indicators with negative performance are prioritised. Thus, in the example below, C.3
is prioritised, with indicators C.4, followed by C.2, taking part in the enhancement discussion.
As C.1 is considered to have better performance, it is not prioritised for the discussion about
enhancement. A practical application of this method is demonstrated in chapter five, and
table 5-2 shows analysis of the characteristic C.1 of the AG, Broad inclusion of actors for
Effective Management, which it belongs to the first theme, AG-1: Extended collaboration
process. For this example, the mandatory indicators show a positive performance, while the
optional indicators are neutral. Then for the practical investigation, the experts have
positively indicated, while the community has referred to this issue negatively. In the
Intermediary investigation part, as demonstrated in tables (5-56) & (5-58), the role of BC as
intermediaries or mediators is identified if its positive or negative, which in this case it was
neutral except the GO04 indicator(negative). Therefore, an enhancement will be proposed
to the GO04 indicator regarding the C.1, as demonstrated in chapter 6, based on the experts’
interviews and literature.
Table 4.2: An example for the application of the Matrix approach to the BC indicators
Theme
Ch.no
Scenario No.
Context Name
Experts Local Community
Indicator1 Indicator 2 Indicator 3 Indicator 4
Theme_ No.
XXX
C.1
C.2
C.3
C.4
4.4.1 Phase 2 Method: Actors’ Perception Analysis
Qualitative research methods seek detailed descriptions of specific situations, and such
research explores the meanings, concepts, definitions, characteristics, and descriptions of
things (L Berg 2001). In this research the aim of using qualitative methods is to understand
the performance of the characteristics that relate to the AG, RC, and I that influence the
adaptation of the Media City neighbourhood project based on the perceptions of a breadth
of actors, both experts and from the community. Qualitative research methods are important
as they appropriately seek answers to questions by examining how humans arrange
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
110
themselves within their environments through mechanisms such as social structures and
roles (L Berg 2001). In relation to certain findings, however, quantitative analysis of
questionnaires was also undertaken in order to enable interpretation of the results. Such
findings are embedded in the overarching qualitative approach to the research in a QUAL
(Quant) format.
For this research, interviews, questionnaires and focus groups were used to gather the data
from various actors. These methods were integrated to allow the flexibility in accessing data,
which was linked and analysed based on the indicators of the BC. The use of questionnaires
and interviews has been acknowledged as being useful in contributing directly to the
evaluation of performance of indicators, as they allow the various participants such as
experts, residents, or end users offer their views on the indicators (Hemphill et al 2004).
In the following sections, the methods used are discussed in more depth to allow
development of an understanding of their application, structure, sampling, coding, data
collection, and analysis.
4.4.1.2 Pilot study: Experts’ Semi-structured Interviews
Before using the questionnaire and interviews within this research, a pilot study was
conducted. A pilot study is part of the first phase of a research procedure, following the
literature review, and the general goal of a pilot study is to provide information to contribute
to the success of the research project as a whole by allowing useful amendments to the
instruments used for data collection (Calitz 2009). According to Calitz (2009), a pilot study
has the following advantages:
• It can give advance warning about where the main research project may fail;
• It indicates where research protocols might not be followed;
• It can identify practical problems associated with the research procedure; and
• It indicates where proposed methods or instruments are inappropriate or too
complicated.
In general, the rationale for a pilot study can be grouped under several broad classifications:
process, resources, management, and scientific. Conducting a pilot prior to the main study
can enhance the likelihood of success of the main study and potentially help to avoid doomed
main studies (Thabane et al 2010). It also allows pre-testing or ‘trying out’ of a particular
research instrument design (Teijlingen and Hundley 2002).
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
111
Experts’ perceptions are essential when investigating the practical assessment of
sustainability practical development (Hemphill et al 2004). As a part of the pilot study for this
phase of the research, two interviews were thus undertaken with the BRE Director and BC
Assessor (August 2016) and the main Sustainability advisor and energy consultant for Media
City (November 2016).
A semi-structured interview was conducted to understand whether the prepared questions
or the main focus of these questions is right, or there is a need to change or add things.
Mainly, a semi structured interview is conducted as there is a need have the interviews in a
conversational way. The semi-structure is a verbal interchange wherein one person, the
interviewer, attempts to elicit information from another person through asking direct
questions. The interviewer prepares a list of questions in advance, but a semi-structured
interview reveals answers in a conversational way, allowing the respondent the chance to
explore issues they feel are important (Longhurst 2003). Semi-structured interviews and
focus groups share some similar aspects in that they are conversational and informal in tone
(Longhurst 2003). Therefore, the choice of this type of interviews is preferable, compared
with the structured interviews, where the questions are predetermined and identified in
advance, or unstructured interviews where there are no questions prepared. Whilst here,
the interviews are as a mix of both.
It was important to have this initial conversation in order to check the relevance of the
selection of experts as well as to identify appropriate ways of approaching them, as in context
it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to identify the real users of NSA tools (Sullivan et al
2014). This initial discussion with the assessor can also be described as a ‘preceding’ process,
a scoping study that helped to structure the main questions in the identified categories. This
was, however, still a challenge as the first phase of the Media City project had been
completed for 12 years by the time this study began, and several key actors were thus no
longer in the same professional posts.
Therefore, the pilot stage was important to address several questions for this phase of the
research:
• to gain more insight into the tasks of the assessors during the development process;
• to identify the aspects of this research that still needed further investigation in relation
to the case study; and
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
112
• to identify any questions proposed within the proposed questionnaire for professionals
that were unclear, too complicated, or required further explanation; The findings of this
pilot phase relating to the questionnaire(s) are discussed in section 4.4.1.2
The initial interview with the BRE director, who was also the BC assessor, was conducted as
a preliminary step in the designing of the questionnaires. A semi structured interview was
thus conducted with BC assessor to test the relevance of the proposed questionnaire
methodology and to identify potential professional actors within the case study who might
usefully be approached. The validity of the questionnaire was also examined in the pilot study
research to test the validity of the questions. This Expert Sampling was important as a positive
tool investigating whether the research questions were relevant as well as allowing the
researcher to identify an appropriate sample. Expert sampling is particularly useful where
research is expected to take a long time before it provides conclusive results or where there
is no clear information about the topic yet; as such, it is usually undertaken in the very earliest
stages of research (Etikan et al 2016). Importantly the interviewees both provided some
points regarding the roles of the main parties involved and agreed that Media City would
provide a useful case study as an important project addressing sustainability targets that still
needs more research.
4.4.1.3 Method 1: Experts’ Perceptions Questionnaire
Questionnaires are a traditional approach for collecting the data explorative research where
the perspectives and views of respondents are most relevant. The questionnaire used in this
research was cross-sectional in design, meaning that it collected the information at a single
point in time (Mathers et al 2007). A questionnaire was selected as a means of data collection
for this research as personal interviews with the experts proved not to be feasible, as most
of the experts involved in the design and development of Media City had changed positions
or even left the country after the first phase of the project was completed. Thus, as many
were no longer working in organisations or posts associated with the project, they would
have found it difficult to give time within work hours to the research work, and may not have
been inclined to offer “free” or non-work time to a work-focussed subject. Thus, a
questionnaire was considered to be an effective alternative tool, as this is were not limited
by the geographical spread of the sample. Further, questionnaire surveys can be undertaken
using a wide range of techniques, including postal and telephone interviews, and can still be
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
113
utilised to generate rich data which can be used to draw conclusions about a whole
community or project from a relatively small sample (Mathers et al 2007).
Following the initial development of a draft questionnaire, the pilot phase reported above
was undertaken, and as a result of discussions with the two experts in the pilot, the
questionnaire was cut down, with some questions embedded that were not appropriate for
experts to respond to were removed. However, most questions were considered to be
relevant, albeit with further editing to clarify meaning and improve sense and readability.
The structure for the pilot interviews is presented in Appendix (A), and the final questionnaire
is reproduced in Appendix (B).
A final stage of piloting was then undertaken after the final questions for the professionals,
36 in total, were formulated. The validity of the questions was tested by undertaking a further
pilot survey among 4 PhD students from a range of relevant disciplines. This pilot survey
showed that the respondents understood what was asked by each question, and the time
taken for each respondent to fill in the questionnaire was within a reasonable scale (20 mins).
Some further modifications were made to the presentation of the questionnaire and the
wording of some questions based on the feedback from this final testing phase, however.
The questionnaire was applied to investigate in practice the performance of the AG, RC, and
I characteristics in the Media City case study. The questions were thus structured around
these characteristics’ context and meanings. Investigation of each of the 20 characteristics
that were extracted in chapter 2 was undertaken within the questionnaire, and thus Likert
scale questions were mostly used. There is wide usage of the Likert scale in the social science
literature to test responses to various issues, such as in market research, with labels attached
to each point (Garland 1991). A Likert scale comprised of 5 or 7 ranks is used widely, and this
is considered a typical Likert scale. Usually, five ranks are considered convenient so as to not
to have too many items at the end of the questionnaire (Oppenheim 2000). Thus, the
respondent is asked to tick one of the choices (strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, and
strongly disagree) (Oppenheim 2000).
The analysis in this case is qualitative and not quantitative, and accordingly, the relevant
comments of respondents for both positive and negative perspectives are illustrated. The 20
characteristics were embedded in the questionnaire, and the expert respondents were asked
to address whether each characteristic (or aspect of a characteristic) was considered a
positive, negative, or neutral issue in the development proposed for Media City.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
114
Table 4.3: Professionals’ Questionnaire Parts and Contents
Questionnaire Parts
Contents of the Parts/ Number of questions
Part 1 Perceptions of CC and Adaptation process strategies, and Water sector
8
Part 2 General Perceptions of living in Media City and sustainability 8
Part 3 Perceptions and Knowledge about BC
8
Part 4 Perceptions of the implemented physical strategies for adaptation of facilities in their neighbourhood, and the delivery of social aspects
12
However, there were some limitations to this questionnaire, regarding the structure in
particular. It is important to mention these limitations, and the next section thus offers an
explanation of the scope of the questionnaire and the identified limitations of this
methodology.
4.4.1.3.1 Professional Actors’ Questionnaire: Scope and Limitations
This section aims to explore the scope of the questionnaire in more detail in order to explore
and evaluate any limitations of this methodological approach in this context. As Oppenheim
(2000) demonstrated, topics that are associated with social behaviours, awareness, learning,
understanding, and similar topics are considered the most difficult topics when making
questionnaires that aim for clear measurement.
Sample size:
In order to promote adaptation to CC in the social context at the neighbourhood scale,
knowledge of the governance level or top-down perspective is highly important in terms of
making decisions that influence the community and the development process. As seen in
chapter 3 regarding the selection of the Media City case study, discussing the role of the
governance in Salford for the development of Media City project showed that when the BC
is included, central figures emerged that had a role in the planning and the delivery of the
outcomes in Media City. The decision-making process was thus undertaken by actors with
the following roles, for whom it was important to have representation during this phase of
the research:
1. BC Actors
2. City Councillors
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
115
3. Urban Planners
4. Developers/Managers
5. Water experts
6. Professional Engineers
7. Architects
Questionnaires were sent to groups of these respondent types with the aim of getting
responses from 21 respondents (3 of each of the 7 respondent types); however, in reality,
responses were received from only 13 expert actors in total, as table 4-4 illustrates.
However, these experts’ respondents had intimate engagement with the process of design
for the project and the implementation of BC within this project was considered extremely
important to the research findings; thus, their responses represent their knowledge,
expertise, position, and influential involvement in the Media City project. Fortunately, all
types were also represented in the sample.
Table 4.4: Respondents from the Media City case study
Case Study Actual Number
/Respondents
Experts Respondents No.
Media City/
Salford UK
13 1. BC actors 2
2. City Councillor 1
3. Urban Planners 2
4. Developers 2
5. Water engineers 2
6. Professional Engineer 2
7. Architect 2
• Question structure and analysis:
Before identifying the questions and their relationship with the themes and characteristics
of the theoretical approaches, the challenges and limitations in the approaches selected
must be considered. One possible limitation of this study relates to the selected question
structure and subsequent analysis and investigation of the characteristics’ performance,
whether positive, negative, or neutral. In order to reflect the evaluation of the process
implemented in Phase 1, all the questions provided opportunities for a full range of
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
116
responses. However, it is sometimes argued that, for Likert scale analysis, it can be best to
not to have too many neutral items or indeed too many extreme items (Oppenheim 2000).
However, allowing a neutral point could add balance to the other scores, especially where
extreme positive and extreme negative scores are available (Oppenheim 2000).
For questions with no obvious neutral option, the options provided were either “I do not
know” or “Not applicable”. These response options provided opportunities for respondents
to indicate where BC did not address a characteristic, in close alignment with the neutral
response used in the evaluation in phase 1. This option gave them the freedom of not
committing to answering a certain question, and, more importantly, did not force the
respondents to give meaningless or false responses (Oppenheim 2000, P129).
However, where characteristics were found to be explicitly evident in BC documentation, the
professionals were encouraged to decide whether the implementation of BC in practice had
either a negative or positive impact. In the questionnaire, two types of questions were used,
closed and ranked scale questions. The closed questions were used when the response was
a specific, such as knowing the main parties that are responsible for initiating the measures
that are responsible for CC adaptation, as Q10 & Q11 illustrate.
As understanding the positive and negative performance of the characteristics was the main
aim, all the questions offered options that required positive and negative ratings based on
Likert scale questions. However, there remained some mismatch between 3, 4, and 5 rank
questions. Ideally, all ranked questions should be constructed with the same ranking scales,
and typically, the five categories scale is the most common, as Jamieson (2004) indicates.
Mainly the 5-rank questions were used for example, in Q26, when there is a need to
understand the extent that the options that associate with (collaboration, communication,
information availability…etc) through BC are available? Five ranks (Strangely Agree, Agree,
Neither Agree or Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) were available.
For the 4 ranks questions, the questions mainly lack the neutral option. However, Oppenheim
(2000) suggests that the neutral point on the scale is not necessarily the midpoint between
the two extreme scale scores, and it is thus difficult to interpret. Brown (2000) believed that
the decision belongs to the researcher with regard to the kinds of information sought from
the questionnaire. For the 4-rank questions, for instance (Q30), to understand the influence
of BC on knowledge and awareness through such options (address feedback, make
workshops, monitoring reports and programs…etc), where the options (Never, Sometimes,
Often, and Quite Often) were used. For analysing the data, both never and sometimes were
deemed negatively points, while the other two options were positive points.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
117
So, the response scales for these questions were crafted such that they enabled this
interpretation. Notably, some questions were worded such that there is an implicit negative,
neutral, or positive interpretation is associated with the multiple choices in the questions.
Regarding this, Oppenheim (2000) provides the following example: “How much trouble have
teeth and gums been to you throughout life?” The response options for the question are (1)
A lot of trouble. (2) Some trouble. (3) Little trouble. (4) No trouble.
Similar situation were found for the other questions with four ranks However, there were no
serious consequences for the final phases of this research from this, as the key aim of the
work was to identify areas in need of enhancement by building upon those characteristics
that actors considered to be negative, a goal supported by this methodological approach.
For the 3-rank question, these questions were used to understand whether certain outcomes
are well delivered or not when BC is applied in MediaCity. For instance, in Q33, three ranks
(Not well delivered, Well Delivered, Very Well Delivered, and I do not know) were utilised.
For the analysis of this question, the options associate with the delivery of physical and social
outcomes that associate with post occupancy are utilised such as: (quality of physical
facilities, occupants’ responsibility to resources usage, community collaborative thinking on
risks time…etc). For this question, it was not a priority to have wide range of ranks, as based
on the literature, these options should be delivered in a sustainable context. However, the
extent that that these options are positively considered was the aim, with identifying the
negativity if existed as well. So, for the analysis of this questions, it was easy to use the
ranking to identify the positive and negative aspects.
Another important issue that needed to be considered for this questionnaire was the
engagement and maintenance of the co-operation of the respondents through making the
mode of response more attractive (Oppenheim 2000). In order to promote engagement with
this research, it was important to minimise the time taken to complete this questionnaire;
thus, the majority of the questions involved ranking, due to the relative ease and speed of
such responses (Oppenheim 2000). When using the closed questions, in order not to cause
respondents feelings of irritation and injustice, the choice of providing an ‘other’ response or
option can be important (Oppenheim 2000). Similarly, an “I do not know” option is important
to acknowledge the possibility that the respondents do not know the answer. This was
implemented where relevant.
For the questionnaire analysis, the main findings of the questionnaire were analysed using
IBM SPSS. Descriptive statistics analysis was adopted for an analysis of the experts’ responses
to the questionnaire, with the purpose of this analysis being to investigate the experts’
perceptions of the performance of the main applied characteristics of the Media City project,
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
118
in which BC was applied in the design and development process. As such, the analysis is
considered to represent the perceptions of the governance actors. It should be noted that
the appropriate sample size for such analysis is dependent on various considerations, such
as comparisons of the sub-groups, estimated accuracy, problems of statistical significance,
and time and resources (Oppenheim 2000). The main aim of issuing the questionnaire to the
experts was to understand their perceptions of the various issues associates with the process
of including BC in governance and community preparation processes for CC adaptation and
sustainability. As such, the size of the sample itself is less important, as the sample accuracy
is more important (Oppenheim 2000). This mirrors a study undertaken by Grade (2009) to
examine the extent to which the category of Planning and Design was incorporated into
LEED-ND projects; that study was based upon the responses of 11 experts to the issue.
Similarly, a response rate of 13 can be deemed as a valid number for the current research.
In the descriptive analysis, the Mean was used in order to investigate the importance that
the experts gave to the constituted options and to investigate whether the options that
represented the associated characteristics were deemed to be either positive or negative in
terms of their performance from the perspective of the experts. The aim of this type of study
is to gather opinions and to draw predictions from this without over-interpreting the results
or findings, as Oppenheim (2000) indicated. A full analysis of the results for the questionnaire
is found in Appendix C.
• Examples of the questions and their analysis:
The relationship of the 20 characteristics with theories AG, RC, and I was thus linked to the
questions’ content. Despite the coverage of these characteristics by the questionnaire, it was
necessary to structure the questionnaire in a way that eased the flow of understanding and
themes from the respondents’ perspective; thus, the approach taken in the questionnaire
design was to place questions into thematically relevant sections rather than strictly adhering
to the themes and characteristics, especially as many questions and their responses held
relevance across characteristics. Table 4-8 below illustrates the relationship between the
main themes and characteristics of the AG evaluation framework, including relevant
questions and sub questions. The analysis and results chapter, chapter 5, offers the
methodology for the characteristic analysis resulting from this complexity in full.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
119
Table 4.5: AG themes and characteristics and the relevant question numbers and options
AG Themes & Characteristics and relationship to questionnaire contents
Themes Characteristics Question
No. Sub-
Questions
AG-1: Extended
collaboration
process
C.1 Collective and Broad Decentralization of
Decisions for Effective Management
10
All
C.2 Strong Local Institutions support 17 All
AG-2: Build
knowledge and
understanding
C.3 Focus/Incorporation of information and
understanding the impacts of CC& Potential
Risks
7
8
11
All
All
A
C.4 Shared/Participatory Ways of Knowledge 26 B, E
C.5 Include the ways that consider increasing the
physical performance of facilities
29 All
AG-3: Continuous
monitoring &
evaluation
C.6 Inclusion of Risks Monitoring Tools for
Continuous Evaluation of Development
Facilities
34
30
C
D,E
AG-4: Develop
capacities with
CC impacts
C.7 Develop the possible actions in facilities in
response with the protection from flood risks
27 All
The approach to the relationships between the questions posed and the theoretical
approaches’ themes and characteristics is described further below.
Table 4.6: Example: AG-1: Extended collaboration process characteristics and associated questions
Example: AG-1: Extended collaboration process
C.1: Collective and Broad centralization of Decisions for Effective management
Q10 To the best of your knowledge, who are the main party/parties that have responsibility for initiating/addressing climate change adaptation measures? You can select more than one. Required
Yes No
A Municipal Government _ CCA
B Non-Government Organisations _CCA
C CC Institutions _CCA
D Sustainability Assessment Tools_ CCA
E Academic Organisations_ CCA C.2: Strong Local Institutions support
Q17 What are the main sources for climate change information for community scale projects, such as Media City during the decision making? You can choose more than one option. Required
Yes No
A Government Agencies _CC
B Non -Governmental organisations _CC
C International Organisations _CC
D Climate change institutions _CC
E BC _CC
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
120
In terms of the focus on AG characteristics for the first theme, AG-1, as seen in table 4.9, the
two characteristics associated with the collaboration of various actors were C.1: Collective
and Broad Decentralization of Decisions for Effective Management and C.2: Strong Local
Institutions support. In the analysis process, it was important to understand that the first
characteristic was associated with understanding the various parties included, to promote
collective action toward addressing adaptive governance and management; the five points
indicated in Q.10 were important for this purpose. Similarly, the options in Q17 were related
to C.2 in terms of understanding the roles of various institutions in the governance process
reacting to CC and the provision of information. These various institutions took on the role
of parties that are linked to CC adaptation, as indicated in chapter two, and included
government and non-government institutions, international institutions, and CC and BC
institutions. Regarding the analysis for these two characteristics, “yes” indicated a positive
response, while “no” was associated with a negative response. Thus, across these actors and
questionnaire respondents, the more “yes” responses, the more these characteristics are
considered to be positive. A detailed interpretation of the combined responses to the
questions that constituted the respondents’ perspective on each characteristic is presented
in the analysis sections for each characteristic in chapter five. With regard to the second
theoretical approach (resilient communities), as table 4-10 illustrates, there were five
relevant characteristics that were correlated to three questions (Q11, Q33, and Q34):
Table 4.7: RC themes and characteristics and the relevant question numbers and options
RC themes & Characteristics and their relation to the questionnaire contents
Themes Characteristics Question
No. Sub-
Question
RC-1: Nature of Community C.8 Community feeling of attachment & social engagement
11 D
RC-2: Community adaptive behaviour towards their facilities and built environment
C.9 Increase the Level of Learning and awareness knowledge and information accessibility
34 A, B
C.10 Effective & Responsive Behaviour for Risks
33 A,B
RC-3: Community Well-being
C.11 Increased Satisfaction with Physical strategies
33 G,C, E
C.12 Enhanced delivery of human Health and well-being
33 F
The approach to the relationship between the questions posed and the theoretical
approaches’ themes and characteristics is described below.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
121
Table 4.8: Example: RC-2: Community adaptive behaviour towards their facilities and built environment characteristics and associated questions
With regard to the focus on RC characteristics for the first theme RC-2, the two
characteristics associated with Community adaptive behaviour towards their facilities and
built environment are C.9: Increase the Level of Learning and awareness knowledge and C.10:
Effective and Responsive Behaviour for Risks. For these two questions, both points A and B
are linked to and associated with these characteristics, while the other points are linked to
other characteristics, as table 4-11 shows. This compilation of associated sub questions
across characteristics, rather than separating questions associated with each characteristic,
Example: RC-2: Community adaptive behaviour towards their facilities and built environment
C.10: Effective &
Responsive
Behaviour for Risks
Q33: Please indicate the extent to which the following aspects have been delivered as outputs of the Media City project? Tick one box for each point
Not well delivered
Well Delivered
Very Well
Delivered
I do not know
A Community responsibility towards using the water resources
B More collaborative thinking among the local community when problems occur regarding the climate change impacts
C Sufficient amounts of good quality freshwater available for occupant’s usage
D Occupants Capability to understand the physical applied outcomes (water facilities in buildings)
E Mechanisms for receiving technical support for the water facilities and services after the occupancy stage
F Providing Public health Surveillance for the facilities and community
G Long term efficiency of the water fixtures at the neighbourhood scale
C.9: Increase the
Level of Learning and
awareness
knowledge and
information
accessibility
Q34: To the best of your knowledge, does BREEAM Communities need more focus to address the following issues for long-term adaptation
Not at all
Low Extent
Medium Extent
High Extent
I do not know
A. Providing and accessing long term information regarding climate change impacts that are used by various social networks
B. Ability of the local community to access the risk information when risks occur
C. Organizing monitoring reports after the occupancy stage
D. Inclusions of plans for health surveillance issue in PO
E. Community responsibility for understanding the technical issues and fixtures in PO
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
122
was intended to make the questionnaire as short as possible. In terms of the interpretation
of responses, in the example of C.9, this related to the two options in question 34. Thus,
where the experts’ response was ‘‘no need for enhancement” or “to a low extent”, positivity
was associated with this characteristic, while where the experts identified a “medium or a
high level of enhancement” was needed, these responses were associated with a level of
negativity with regard to this characteristic. Similarly, for C.10, Q33, if the experts thought
that these points were “well delivered”, then these characteristics were considered positive
here, whereas, if the experts selected “not well delivered”, these characteristics were
deemed negative. Such negativity was the most important scenario, as this questionnaire
aimed to identify this in all 20 characteristics. For the I evaluation analysis, the investigation
of the BC’s role as an intermediary in Media City, from Q30, is reproduced below. The
characteristics are shown in table 4.9.
Table 4.9: I themes and characteristics and related question numbers and sections
Intermediaries’ themes & Characteristics and their relation to the question’s numbers and sections
Themes Characteristics Questions Sections
I-1: intermediaries’ role in facilitate knowledge
C.13 Information availability & interpretation 16 All
C.14 Communication between departments 26
30
C,D,E
A,B
C.15 Long-term programmes for community organisation capability and adaptive behaviour
30 E, F
C.16 Bottom- up feedback from iterative process of adaptive social learning
30 B
C.17 Training and educational programme 30 C
I-2: Mediators roles making the social change
C.18 Create the Network and identify the targets and strategies
26 A
C.19 Understanding the nature of community and enable their active involvement & participation
34 B
C.20 Information update and translate the information
30 F
The related questions options and numbers are shown in table 4-13, where it can be seen
that for question 30, for instance, C.16 (Training and educational programme) was linked to
theme I-1: Mediation between different actors to facilitate knowledge transfer & Learning,
related to option (C) of this question, whilst options B and C of the same question were
related to C.15 (Communication between departments).
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
123
Table 4.10: Example: I-1: Intermediaries’ role in facilitating knowledge characteristics and associated questions
Example: I-1: intermediaries’ role in facilitate knowledge
C.13:
Information availability & interpretation
Q16: Which of the following points do you think need more Focus/consideration in BC?
Yes No
A Objectives of adaptation mean here addressing CC as a leading environmental issue
B Resilience targets - resilience means long term sustainability
C Data availability and quality
D Level of accuracy
E Integration of short term and long-term horizons in the plans
C.14:
Communication between departments
C.15: Long-term programmes for community organisation capability and adaptive behaviour
C.16: Bottom- up feedback from iterative process of adaptive social learning
C.17: Training and educational programme
Q26: How much do you agree or disagree with the availability of following options regarding the issues that associate with actors’ management process when BC is applied?
Strongly Agree
Agree Neither Agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
A Identification of professionals and their responsibilities in the decision making
B Provision of High degree of Collaboration among the various stakeholders such as climatologists, hydrologists, water engineers, designers, developers…etc
C Facilitate the connection between the local community and other professionals
D Availability of climate information for the various stakeholders and provision of access to this information when need
E openness through discussions and meetings among local community and professionals to understand the planning issues regarding water management
Q. 30: To the best of your knowledge, how often do you think sustainability tools such as BC when applied, are influencing the learning process and level of awareness among the varied actors, throughout the selected options?
Never Sometimes Often Quite Often
I do not know
A Organise workshops and meetings among the water experts and climate scientists and local community to promote effective communication
B Address the feedback among local community and experts using easy translation language and simple communication methods
C Training/programs for in service training of staff/experts in water resources management
D Continuous Evaluation of the Decisions and methods Used
E Continuous Monitoring & Re-evaluation reports to follow up the participation & communication of actors
F Establishing an educational component to participation
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
124
4.4.1.4 Method 2 (1): Questionnaire for Local Community
In order to collect useful data for this research regarding the process of BC application and
to address the outcomes in relation to adaptation to CC, the perceptions of local
communities were vital. As such, a questionnaire was designed for the local communities,
that was similar in content and structure to that used for the experts, which included 37
questions, more than used for the experts. This corresponded to the greater scale and
number of gaps associated with the local communities, as identified in the previous chapters,
with regard to their understanding of the main CC impacts and adaptation processes, their
incorporation within the Governance process promoted by BC, their opinions regarding their
implementation of various strategies, their awareness level about adaptation and
sustainability aspects, their well-being, and their management of facilities. Accordingly, this
second questionnaire had four main parts, as seen in table 4-14.
Table 4.11: Questionnaire parts and contents for the local community of Media City
Questionnaire Parts Contents/Number of questions
Part 1 Perceptions of CC and Adaptation process strategies, and Water sector
8
Part 2 General Perceptions of living in Media City and sustainability 8
Part 3 Perceptions of and Knowledge about BC
8
Part 4 Perceptions of the implemented physical strategies for adaptation of facilities in their neighbourhood, and the delivery of social aspects
12
There was some resemblance in the contents of this questionnaire to that of the experts’
questionnaire and indeed, in the first instance, the approach to consultation was initially to
gather identical information to form comparable datasets. However, some questions were
altered in order to ensure clarity and appropriateness in a community context, especially in
terms of the use of language to avoid the use of professional jargon.
The target sample was 20 to 25 respondents in order to access a range of opinions and to
talk to people with different experiences. Most qualitative methodologists perceive a lack of
standards for sample size (Marshall et al 2013). Qualitative methods are rarely troubled by
the lack of guidelines, however, with the vague nature of sample size guidelines reflecting
the qualitative orientation of research where quality of interviews, number of interviews per
participant, sampling procedures, and researcher experience are what matter (Marshall et al
2013).
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
125
The collection of the responses to this questionnaire was not implemented using online
surveys but rather through the personal visits to Media City, approaching the people who
live, work, and study there. Random methods were used in terms of applying the
questionnaire and collecting the samples.
As with the professionals’ survey questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted, with a
particular focus on relevance to community perceptions was useful here. The reason for
conducting a pilot study was thus to test the structure and the content of the questionnaire
for its suitability for the local community. The structure of the initial pilot stage was very
important for this research, as when the questionnaire was checked, it was found that most
of the questions were too complicated or not relevant: the questionnaire had several
questions that were associated with sustainability strategies and water facilities, but did not
explain the meaning of these statements, and this type of question was found to be difficult
for the target audience to understand. Many were also too long: some of the questions
included 8 points to respond to, and respondents found these types of questions too long.
A reduction in the number of questions and the scope of coverage was also required. As
suggested earlier, conducting a pilot prior to a main study can enhance the likelihood of
success and potentially help to avoid doomed main studies (Thabane et al 2010), and this
certainly happened in relation to the methodological approach in the Media City case study.
The actual number of respondents was also very limited in this phase (7). The recruitment of
respondents in Media City was very difficult, as barriers to gathering respondents included
factors such as
- local people were either not interested in responding to these questions or had no
time to respond.
- identifying local occupants in Media City itself was difficult, as it was not possible to
reach them in their residences due to limited accessibility for residents’ own security.
Getting responses to the questionnaire from the local community proved challenging, and
only seven respondents for the pilot questionnaire for the local community were found.
These respondents were selected randomly; however, as noted in chapter 3, in terms of the
local community, the target was the people who live, work, and study in the Media City
project area, as these are the three main representative categories for the investigation
process. Initially, it was thought that the questionnaire distribution process to the local
community would be reasonably straightforward, as there is significant occupied public
space. However, based on the initial pilot results, it was difficult to approach people, and in
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
126
particular, to find anyone who had had any part in the decision-making process. There was
thus a concern that this might affect the results of this stage.
The results of the pilot study regarding the local communities appeared to highlight the fact
that the local communities were not involved in the decision-making process, and had no
information about BC; indeed, they were not aware of it at all or its role in the redevelopment
of the Media City. Failing to get information from the local community through the use of a
similar methodology to that used for the experts required the exploration and adoption of a
methodology that would enable and attract a more open type of discussion with community
representatives regarding the various aspects surrounding the development, and the
approach selected was focus groups.
Such group discussions can generate more critical comments than interviews (Robinson
1999). Breen (2006) also mentioned that the focus group should be undertaken among a
variety of participants, as it has been found that there is a need to share and compare the
participants’ experiences with each other to develop and generate ideas, and to explore
issues of shared importance. However, researchers describe the data they attain from focus
groups as “extremely rich” and “high quality” (Williams and Katz 2001). Therefore, as
explained below, the focus group was identified as an appropriate methodology for this
research.
4.4.1.5 Method 2 (2): Focus Group Methodology
Focus group methodology is a qualitative research tool that is frequently used in social
sciences to explore meanings, ways of understanding, or experiences of a complex
phenomenon. It is an approach that has seen widespread application in areas of social
science as diverse as medical sociology, community development, nursing, and health
sciences (Williams and Katz, 2001). It has also been utilised by geographers and
environmentalists to examine people’s experiences of specific applied assessment methods
(Breen 2006). Focus groups, as demonstrated by Williams and Katz (2001), have thus become
an established and important methodological part of social science, used mainly when a
specific topic is being explored. It involves collecting and evaluating data on the topic based
on questions designed for the purpose in order to investigate and determine both positive
and negative aspects associated with the topic, often to determine success or progress (Nagle
and Williams 2013).
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
127
For this research, four focus groups sessions were proposed among community groups in
order to investigate the perceptions of the performance of the characteristics of the three
theoretical approaches in the realisation of Media City. One of the major strengths of focus
group methodology is its exploratory nature; focus groups are thus very useful in providing
context and depth, which was required for investigation of the adaptation approaches among
the community of Media City. As such, this approach offered significant opportunities over
and above the initial questionnaires methodological approach.
According to Gibbs (1997), the focus group is considered an important method for producing
significant information about a particular topic by promoting organised discussion within a
selected group of individuals in order to generate information about their views and
experiences of a topic. The benefits of focus group research include gaining insights into
people’s shared understandings of everyday life, a facet of core relevance to this phase of
the research.
Focus groups promote a comfortable atmosphere for disclosure in which people can share
their ideas, experiences, and attitudes about a topic (Williams and Katz, 2001). Therefore,
these focus groups aimed to investigate participants’ attitudes, feelings, beliefs, experiences,
and reactions in a way which was not feasible using other methods such as observation, one-
to-one interviews, or questionnaire surveys (Gibbs, 1997).
4.4.1.5.1 Application of Focus Group Methodology in Media City
Individual depth interviews are expensive and time-consuming and are not easy to arrange,
and thus sessions with groups of participants are often preferred (Oppenheim 2000). In
practice, the focus group methodology typically involves a series of group interviews about a
given topic or phenomenon guided by a moderator (Poels et al 2007) to develop in-depth
and open-ended group discussion that explores a specific set of issues around a predefined
and limited topic (Robinson 1999).
Here, the aim of the focus groups was to explore the community’s perceptions of the
performance of all of the evaluation characteristics, in order to establish whether, from their
perspective, these characteristics had had positive or negative effects in their
neighbourhood, Media City. The local community pilot research findings suggested that there
was little or no specific knowledge about the role of governance actors in the application of
adaptation and sustainability strategies, and that there was an equal level of absence of
knowledge about the BC as an intermediary sustainable tool. Therefore, the main focus of
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
128
the focus groups was around the characteristics associated with Resilient Communities, as
the structure outlined in table 4-15 shows. The full guide for the focus groups, including the
questions posed, is reproduced in Appendix D.
The main five characteristics, extracted based on the literature examined in chapter 2,
framed the main subjects presented to community participant groups in the focus group
sessions, with the aim being to determine the positive or negative performance associated
with each of the characteristics as part of participants’ experience of living, working, or
studying in Media City.
Table 4.12: Structure for the focus groups sessions: Community investigation
Main Context Characteristics & questions
Social Context
Characteristic 1: Community engagement & empowerment
What are the positive aspects associated with each characteristic? What are the negative aspects associated with each characteristic?
Characteristic 2: Community well-being
Characteristic 3: Community Knowledge & Awareness
Characteristic 4: Community management and the performance of facilities
The resulting evaluation of the performance of these characteristics was dependent on the
type of response elicited during conversation associated with each characteristic (whether
positive or negative), which as being demonstrated earlier in this chapter that this research
is a considered a qualitative research. Accordingly, the relevant comments from participants
for both the positive and negative perspectives are illustrated. This was achieved by asking
the participants two main questions to identify the positive and negative aspects relating to
the specific characteristic.
Table 4.13: Example of focus group characteristics relationship to RC characteristics
Main focus groups categories/characteristics
RC characteristics from (Chapter 2)
Characteristic 1: Community engagement and empowerment
RC-1: Nature of Community C.8 Community feeling of attachment to neighbourhood & social engagement
Table 4-16 shows an example of the characteristic of community engagement and
empowerment (C.8) and its association with the community engagement process. The
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
129
participants were also asked to provide information about intermediary and mediating actors
who have had either positive or negative roles in influencing this characteristic.
Four sessions were undertaken, with the time for each session ranging from 60 to 90 minute;
permission was elicited from all participants for the discussion in these sessions to be
recorded. This was based on Robinson’s (1999) proposals that focus groups should be open
ended discussion of one to two hours' duration that aim to investigate various aspects
associated with an established and limited subject, and it was found that 90 minutes was
sufficient to ensure good coverage for the main aspects in this research. Papers that included
the main questions were prepared in advance for the researcher, and short questionnaires
asking about key personal information (including name, age, and occupation) were
distributed for each participant to complete, as shown in Figure 4-3. Finally, a gift voucher
was given to each participant in appreciation of their participation and the sharing of their
information and experiences.
Figure 4. 3: Focus group session set-up in Media City
4.4.1.5.2 Focus Group Sampling
The focus groups were held in the Media City development (Salford) in February 2017. The
anonymity of participants has been maintained and they are thus only identified based on
their relationship with the Media City development. In this study, the perceptions of those
people who live in the project (Occupants), work in the project (Employees), and who
studying there (Students) were three target responses. These were based on the three main
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
130
communities present in the development as demonstrated in the description of Media City
in chapter 3.
The sampling of the population used for the focus groups was a form of cluster sampling, a
method whereby the total population is divided into groups or clusters (Singh and Masuku
2014). On visiting the relevant communities in Media City, invitation cards were distributed
and circulated to relevant people. These invitation letters included information about the
time, place, and the details for the sessions. The form distributed to the community
participants is shown in figure 4-4.
Figure 4. 4: Invitation card used for the focus groups sessions in the Media City case study
After gathering a few samples, Snowball sampling was then used in order to reach the
necessary number of participants. This technique is used to develop a sample population
without necessarily knowing the characteristics of populations (Oppenheim 2000), a process
that assists researchers in enriching sampling clusters and gaining access to new participants
and social groups (Noy 2008). It should be said that the snowball sample is not representative
of the general demographics for the case study, but nevertheless contains representatives
from each named sub-group. The focus group sessions thus all contained members from the
three communities identified as present in Media City. In total, the number of participants
was 23, with each group containing between five and seven participants. Over the four
sessions, 10 occupants, six students and seven employees participated. Summary of the
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
131
information for these participants is shown in Appendix E. The outcomes and findings of the
focus groups were analysed using the qualitative software program NVIVO, and this analytical
approach is discussed in detail in the next section.
4.4.1.5.3 Focus Group Data Analysis: NVIVO
The focus group analysis was based on coding the responses that were given to the questions
in the focus group sessions. NVIVO software was considered appropriate for this coding
process, as it allows points to be were identified as ether positive or negative. NVIVO’s Search
Tool was used to conduct search queries (Auld et al 2007), allowing the researcher to
investigate the data at various levels, which improved the rigour of the analysis process by
validating some of the researcher's ideas about the data (Welsh 2002). Using software in the
data analysis process adds to the rigour of data analysis and investigation of qualitative
research, offering a greater level of accuracy than could be achieved without such software
(Welsh 2002). NVIVO also aids analysis by enabling the researcher to code data according to
a classification scheme that allows easy identification and indexing. NVIVO thus allows more
sophisticated data coding and supports various methods of constructing theories based on a
n improved understanding of the coding process (Ozkan 2004).
The software also provides increased capabilities for data management and coding text
through creating nodes and examining the relationships among these nodes (Auld et al 2007).
The process of coding is important, as categorising the data plays an important role in its
analysis. After conducting the focus groups, information based on the answers of each
respondent was thus transcribed into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The full anonymised
transcriptions are reproduced in the appendices.
The process of building case nodes based on respondents’ answers is supported by the
analysis mode of the NVIVO software. These nodes are constituted of all collected
information, whether a full text or a sentence, that is likely to have meaning in terms of the
results analysis. For instance, when the participants were asked about the positive aspects
that they associated with community social engagement in Media City, the participants
offered various aspects associated with characteristics related to community activities, as
Figure 4-5 shows. These case nodes were created through coding responses for the
investigated categories. The coding process is thus important in terms of developing an image
of the connections among the data and the relationships thus identified. It allows the
researcher to communicate and connect with the data to facilitate understanding of the
current situation regarding the target phenomenon, producing a theoretically grounded map
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
132
for analysis (Basit 2003). The coding process is thus derived from the data collected, with
common points among the data forming the main nodes.
Figure 4. 5: An illustration of the results of the coding process for positive and negative aspects relating to characteristics of community engagement
NVIVO facilitates this process because it allows for the creation of case nodes; every time a
distinct concept was identified from the focus group data, a node was created to represent
it, and the relevant text pertaining to that concept stored at that node (Hutchison et al 2010).
The number of participants who spoke about items coded with the role of the developers
was not the same as the number of participants who spoke about items coded with the role
of the council, and quantifying the participants is not the main issue here. The type of case
nodes identified from the participants’ discussion is of most interest for this analysis. Each of
these points are thus demonstrated in chapter 5 in the community analysis section to
illustrate why certain characteristics showed a particular balance of positive and negative
aspects.
From the analysis using NVIVO, it can be seen that, as in Figure 4-15, both positive and
negative aspects were coded from the participants’ responses regarding the example
characteristic. These aspects are considered to be sub cases in terms of this software. The
diagrammatic output summaries of the other characteristics produced using the software
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
133
are reproduced in Appendix E. Coding of these aspects was undertaken with tags or labels
used for allocating units of meaning to descriptive or inferential information gathered during
the study based on varying-sized groups of words, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs
associated with the investigated issues (Basit 2003). The process of coding using this software
is important not only to organise the data and add rigour to its analysis but also to avoid the
risk of human error during searches for simple information within the data set as a whole; it
thus makes the whole coding process safer (Welsh 2002).
Figure 4. 6: NVIVO breakdown of positive and negative aspects relating to the characteristic of community social engagement
4.5 Phase 3: Face-to-Face Interviews: Expert Perceptions of the Results
from the Community
After conducting phases 1 and 2 of this research, a final stage was undertaken based on
integrating the findings of the two earlier phases. The investigation in the final stage aimed
to address the AG, RC, and I characteristics identified as hindering adaptive capacity to
respond to climate change, as well as the associated negative indicators of BC. The main
purpose was to investigate the experts’ views further and to develop more detailed
perceptions of the negative performance of certain characteristics, to see whether there was
any correlation between the potential enhancements of the two main areas of the BC
indicator’s role as an intermediary tool in relation to enhancement of the characteristics of
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
134
the AG & RC theoretical approaches. The final phase of the work thus aimed to propose
potential enhancements to BC.
In order to further inform these proposals, face to face interviews with selected experts from
phase 2 were undertaken. The questions for these face to face interviews are shown in
Appendix F. In this case, the questions were designed after analysis of the questionnaires and
focus groups, which revealed which characteristics performed negatively both in their
theoretical relationship to the BC manual and also practically. Three interviewees were
included in this stage:
1. The BREEAM director and BC assessor,
2. A sustainability advisor (on behalf of the developer), and
3. A water expert (on behalf of Salford City Council).
The full responses of these experts are reproduced in Appendix G. It should be noted that
these three experts also participated in responding to the questionnaire and had thus
expressed previously that they were willing to participate in this final stage. The final
proposals for enhancement can, therefore, draw from the findings from all three
participatory phases of this research: questionnaires, focus groups, and interviews
4.6 Sub-Conclusion:
In this chapter, the final methodology proposed to answer the research questions was
defined; this involved the use of a matrix approach, with questionnaires, focus groups, and
interviews combined. Together, these structured the three phases of the research in order
to successfully collectively inform the final findings. Pilots were undertaken for the research
methods to test the validity and relevance to the practical analysis of the adopted research
methods regarding the actors’ perceptions analysis. The pilot research methods led to the
development of less complicated and more practically applicable questions for the experts
of Media City, whilst for the community, they led to a beneficial change in method, with a
focus group methodology adopted in phase 2.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
135
The identification of the need for both theoretical indicator analysis and practical actors’
perception analysis drove the main phases of the work to support the analysis of BREEAM
Communities indicators and the Media City case study analysis. It was also decided to
consider only qualitative research methods, as investigation of the characteristics of the
availability and performance of Adaptive Governance, Resilient Communities, and
Intermediaries theories are mainly dependent on exploring whether there is a certain level
of information or answers that relate to the existence of these characteristics in both theory
and practice.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
136
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community &
Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
5.1 Introduction
The main aim of this chapter is to investigate the extent to which the themes & characteristics
of adaptive governance, Resilience Community & Intermediaries are promoted within two
parts of the BC tool (governance & social) in terms of both its theory and practice. The
analysis constitutes the performance investigation analysis of the (9) main themes and
associated (20) characteristics that were identified from literature in chapter 2, and their
relation to the relevant governance and social/community indicators of BREEAM
Communities that were identified in chapter 4. In order to address this aim, the chapter
comprises three main parts that correspond to the analysis of the three theoretical
approaches. Within these three parts, the analysis presented constitutes the following three
sections: for the characteristics described:
1. Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators: the performance analysis of the
characteristics of each approach in relation to the BREEAM Communities indicators.
The matrix approach is used for the indicator’s analysis here. This reports the findings
of phase 1 of the research.
2. Expert & Community Perceptions: the performance analysis of the characteristics in
relation to the actors’ perceptions of Media City case study. The comparison
between the perceptions of both the experts & community is presented here. This
reports the findings of phase 2 of the research.
3. Summary: discusses the comparison of characteristics performance against the
characteristics of both the BC indicators and actors’ perceptions. The focus here is
on identifying the negative characteristics performance in order to present the
characteristics and indicators that require further enhancement in order for BREEAM
communities to deliver and promote adaptation in theory & practice in relation to
key indicators. This aims to inform phase 3 of the research.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
137
5.2 Adaptive Governance & BREEAM Communities: analysis &
recommendations
As demonstrated in chapter 2, there are four main themes that are related to the adaptive
governance within the literature studies, as reported in table (5-1):
• AG-1: Extended collaboration process
• AG-2: Build knowledge and understanding
• AG-3: Continuous Monitoring & Evaluation
• AG-4: Develop capacities when dealing with the climate change
It is acknowledged that for these themes, that there are 7 related characteristics which are
employed as the operational aspects within the analysis undertaken here. Table (5-1) shows
the relationship between the themes and characteristics related to adaptive governance.
Table 5. 1: Adaptive Governance themes & characteristics
Adaptive Governance themes & characteristics
Themes Characteristics
AG-1 Extended collaboration process
C.1: Broad inclusion of actors for Effective Management
C.2: Strong Local Institution Support
AG-2
Build knowledge and understanding
C.3: Focus/Incorporation of information and understanding the impacts of Climate Change & Potential Risks
C.4: Shared/Participatory Ways of Knowledge
C.5: Consider the physical performance of facilities during the consultation process
AO_3 Monitoring & Management
C.6: Monitoring and Continuous Evaluation of Development Facilities
AG-4 Develop capacities when dealing with the climate change
C.7: Develop the possible actions in facilities in response to and protection from flood risks
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
138
As identified in chapter 4, there are 4 main indicators relevant to the governance context in
BC, namely:
No. Indicator Ref: Description Indicator Type
1 GO 01 Consultation Plan Mandatory
2 GO 02 Consultation and engagement
3 GO 03 Design review Optional
4 GO 04 Community management of facilities
It should be noted again that the first two indicators of (GO01) & (GO02) are mandatory,
while the indicators (GO03) & (GO04) are optional indicators.
The following sections will present the evaluation of these indicators against each of the
adaptive governance themes and their constituent characteristics in turn.
5.2.1 AG-1: Extended collaboration process
C.1: Broad inclusion of actors for Effective Management
This characteristic is associated with both broad and wide participation, with an appropriate
breadth of actors across the various stages of the development process; in order to address
the needs and requirements of the various parties.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
The findings of the analysis of this characteristic against the four BC indicators, is presented
in table (5-2) below.
Table 5. 2: the analysis of C.1 in the governance context of BC
Theme Characteristic
Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
Consultation Plan
Consultation and engagement
Design review
Community management of facilities
AG_1
C.1
+1 +1 0 0
For the mandatory indicators GO01 & GO02, it is acknowledged that there are various actors
that are encouraged to participate and are involved in the development process and
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
139
therefore that the decision-making process, when BC is applied, could thus be described as
a ‘de-centralised process’. This engagement constitutes the local authority, local
representatives, developers, environmental agencies, and maintenance and management
teams, as well as the community. This is considered a positive issue, since, as is mentioned
in chapter 2, the inclusion of a variety of actors can enrich the development of information
from various areas of expertise, to advance the sustainability and adaptation targets (Walker
et al 2004; Agrawal 2008; Dewulf and Termeer 2015). Therefore, this expectation for wide
engagement when BC is applied is important to find here, with inclusion of actors from both
the “top down” governance level and “bottom up” community level in order to deliver the
support needed to address innovative and flexible engagement.
Meanwhile, for GO03, an independent facilitator is the actor who is tasked with informing
the local community about the main points of the development design process in order to
ensure that the development process is achieving healthy and vibrant outcomes. GO04 is
associated with the support given to the local community, in becoming involved in the
management of facilities.
• Expert & Community perceptions:
Experts: The sources of the findings reported in this section are from the professional actors’
questionnaire:
Question 10 Section: All
Question 11 Section: B
The results from consultation with experts demonstrated that there was a wide and vital
collaboration process of actors in Media City when BC was applied, where the experts from
various background and expertise sectors were involved in the governance process. This
work has coincided with a study undertaken by (Oliver and Pearl 2018) of the Masthusen
project/Sweden, which also explored the evaluation of the application BC, where a higher
level of collaboration than on a conventional project was found, and BREEAM was found to
have helped to maintain momentum over time to meet sustainability goals. However, as was
found here, on its own, the BREEAM Communities tool cannot ensure widespread
participation both within the project community boundaries and outside of these boundaries
(Oliver and Pearl 2018).
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
140
The experts consulted here considered that role of the authority, whether at the national or
local level, to be the main party in addressing Climate Change adaptation. The roles of
academic institutions and Non-Governmental organisations or institutions were less
important in this context, while the role of the organisations that represented the
Sustainability assessment tools was considered the weakest. Table (5-3) shows the findings
of question ten, associated with expert responses regarding whether these parties are
considered important in addressing adaptation to CC, and the answer was either yes or no.
The coding for the SPSS analysis of this question was (No=0) while (Yes=1).
This is a relevant finding, as this research seeks to explore the extent to which BREEAM
communities, a sustainable assessment tool, might enable the delivery of climate change
adaptation, and as such this finding point towards a need for enhancements. Nevertheless,
the experts reported that there was a wide inclusion of actors involved in the Media City
project, compared with other development projects.
Table 5. 3: Experts responses for the main parties and roles for adaptation to CC
Options N Mean Influence on Performance
Municipal Government _ CCA 13 0.69
Non-Government Organisations _CCA 13 0.23
CC Institutions _CCA 13 0.15
Sustainability Assessment Tools_ CCA 13 0.08
Academic Organisations_ CCA 13 0.38
Valid N (listwise) 13
Primarily, the collaboration of the various sectors in the development process, such as water
management processes, needs further focus. As with most environmental policy challenges
today, the private provisioning of public adaptation demands complex governance, and will
involve multiple actors and stakeholder groups in potentially innovative private–public
partnerships. This idea can be labelled as the diversity hypothesis, as it assumes that
institutional and organizational diversity is the most effective way to cope with complexity
(Tompkins and Eakin 2012). This diversity and complexity were present in the governance
process of Media City, as there were many parties influencing the decision-making process.
Community: The participants reported that they do not have sufficient information on the
consultation processes and the discussion of the implementation of strategies, as they were
not included in this consultation process, nor have they subsequently heard whether these
types of consultation processes occurred. However, they did refer to the roles of Salford
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
141
Council & the Developers as the main institutions of importance with regards to the
implementation of both sustainability and adaptation strategies. It is important to note at
this point that the focus groups indicated that they had no knowledge about the role of BC
within the development.
It is acknowledged that adapting to climate change involves cascading decisions across a
landscape made up of agents, including individuals, firms and civil society, public bodies and
governments at local, regional and national scales, and international agencies (Adger et al
2005). Therefore, there is a need to focus on including the local community as significant
partners in the planning and implementation of strategies for CC adaptation and
sustainability development application.
Summary – C.1:
Accordingly, the experts positively indicated the existence of wide collaboration processes
between actors in Media City when BC is applied, while at the same the role of Salford City
Council is acknowledged. For the community participants, there is no level of information
indicated regarding the collaboration process, while participants negatively referred to their
non-inclusion in the development. The perception was that the central roles were played by
the developers and council only.
In BC, this issue is positively described regarding the actors’ consultation related indicators.
C.2: Strong Local Institutional Support
It has been mentioned in chapter two that the relevant institutions include both formal and
informal organizations, offering support for the application of sustainability strategies in the
planning and implementation process.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
The analysis of this characteristic against the four BC indicators demonstrated that the
mandatory indicators are showing positive performance, while the optional indicators are
showing neutral performance, as table (5-4) shows.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
142
Table 5. 4: the analysis of C.2 in the Governance Context of BC
Theme Characteristic
Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
Consultation Plan
Consultation and engagement
Design review Community management of facilities
AG_1
C.2
+1 +1 0 0
The first two indicators of GO01 & GO02 include various institutions related to the integration
of the various actors, as demonstrated earlier with the community, authority and experts.
That there is an inclusion of both formal and informal institutions participating in the
decision-making processes to achieve support for the application of sustainability targets is
positive. It is acknowledged that the role of the authority is central, being the one who is
identifying the consultation plan and the participants as well. It is also argued that the process
of participation of community and informing them of feedback also comes under the role of
the authority. Finally, the selection of the aspects of design for the discussions is also
identified as the authority’s responsibility.
Therefore, the role and engagement of the authority appears to be more strongly addressed
in relation to the support of the consultation plan. This is a positive matter, where, the
importance of the authorities’ role in translating the overall strategies for adaptation into
tangible actions for community resilience is important through allowing the engagement to
involve hard to reach community individuals (Jensen et al 2016). Which in BC, it is
acknowledged that the local authority is in support of this issue.
The application of both mandatory indicators seems to be important for supporting the
inclusion of community engagement and for the inclusion of the sustainable strategies. There
is, however, a need to understand the process and the scale and depth of scope of such
meetings and discussions, and whether these discussions are enabling wide community
engagement.
The remaining two optional indicators, GO03 & GO04, are important in providing local
support for the design review and feedback processes, and community management process
of facilities respectively. Despite their importance, these indicators are optional. With
indicator GO03, despite its mention that after the consultation process the feedback will be
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
143
sent to the community, there is no information on whether there is an interactive
engagement that happens after sending the feedback, or any detail to support this
engagement. For GO04, it is acknowledged that the developer is the party who is responsible
for the community management process, and is the party that decides whether there is a
need for a community management process or not.
Therefore, it seems that the two optional indicators are important, yet they demand more
focus when it comes to engaging and developing community participation into sustainability
and notably in promoting adaptive capacity, through the role of the local institutions. Thus,
these two indicators seem to reflect this issue very lightly, and as the table shows have
neutral performance in relation to this characteristic.
• Expert & Community Perceptions:
Experts: The sources of the findings reported in this section are from the professional actors’
questionnaire:
Question 17 Section: D
The experts reported that the role of the various local institutions in supporting the issue of
climate change and having strategies for the adaptation process related to CC is important,
but this is not seen as positively as it should be in Media City. Regarding the role of the CC
institutions, whether in Media City or in other projects in the UK, there has been a lacking
role seen when it comes to providing enough support to manage uncertainties in community
scale projects. However, at the same, time, they identify the role of the council as important,
yet it is still not a positive in addressing the information required for the decision making and
consultation process, and to promote effective adaptation to Climate Change in MediaCity.
Table (5-5) shows the findings of question seventeen, associated with expert responses
related to roles of importance and support, offered through the role of the main parties for
the information provided during decision making. The coding for this SPSS analysis of the
question (17) was (No=0) while (Yes=1). It can be seen that none of these parties present a
positive role.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
144
Table 5. 5: Experts responses for the role and support provided for the information about CC adaptation by the associated institutions
Options N Mean Influence on Performance
Government Agencies _CC 13 0.38
Non -Governmental organisations _CC
13 0.31
International Organisations _CC 13 0.00
Climate change institutions _CC 13 0.15
BC _CC 13 0.23
Valid N (listwise) 13
Community: The participants, through the focus groups, mentioned again that they were not
invited to meetings or other activities that are associated with the development process,
addressing the consultation process, or were in any other manner vitally engaged with the
other stakeholders, despite the continuous process of construction seen currently in Media
City. They did refer to the need for wider consultation and engagement processes which
include them in the development process of their communities, and to increase the
availability of information about these engagement processes. It is acknowledged that
‘‘Multiparty processes that are not too tightly coupled to a formal decision-making and
implementation process, which leaves more room for creativity and innovation because the
participants may not start to negotiate from entrenched positions’’ (Pahl-Wostl et al 2007).
Summary – C2:
Accordingly, the experts have coded negative feedback about the role of various institutions,
including the council, to provide support related to sustainability and adaptation processes.
The community, on the other hand, referred to the negative role of the various institutions,
and particularly that of the developers when it comes to supporting local adaptation through
inclusion in the development process.
However, this role in the BC is positively indicated regarding support towards sustainability,
as well as the engagement and provision of information, through the various institutions'
engagement and support.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
145
5.2.2 AG-2: Build knowledge and understanding
• C.3: Focus/Incorporation of information and understanding the impacts of
Climate Change & Potential Risks
This characteristic is associated with the incorporation of information on Climate Change
impacts and risks in the decision-making process of the development process, as an essential
step towards increasing adaptation among the various participants.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
The analysis of the characteristics across the four indicators of BC illustrates that the two
mandatory indicators are showing positive performance, while for the two optional
indicators, neutral and negative performance are seen respectively, as table (5-6) shows.
Table 5. 6: the analysis of C.3 in the governance context of BC
Theme Characteristic
Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
Consultation Plan
Consultation and engagement
Design review
Community management of facilities
AG-2 C.3
+1 +1 0 -1
Regarding the two mandatory indicators GO01 & GO02 which show positivity aspects of
potential adaptation, it can be said that the indicator of GO01 has the potential to address
discussion about Climate Change impacts with the participants in the decision making
process, as it has mentioned that consultation processes should include a discussion of the
impacts that affect the development areas. This is particularly the case for historical places,
with the participation of the varied actors. It is acknowledged that flooding is the main issue
discussed and where it might threaten the development, while discussion about the other
CC impacts was not part of the consultation process. It is mentioned that a named person
who is responsible for delivering the consultation activities and championing the outcomes
in the project team, together with their contact details, is required by the GO01 indicator.
Discussion among experts regarding CC impacts and effects on the development was
undertaken earlier, allowing the various experts to share knowledge about potential CC
impacts and how they relate to the development process. In this regard, addressing the
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
146
connection among the various actors is important, as well as highlighting how the meetings
are advanced across the whole development process.
For both optional GO03 & GO04 indicators, it is mentioned that when the experts complete
the review process for the various development options, among the issues considered are
the diversity and compatibility of uses in the development, and how design needs to be
flexible and adaptable over time. However, there is no explicit mention of CC impacts, but
the idea of adaptation in general is mentioned. For GO04, there is no reference to any focus
on CC impacts or risk scenarios within the development measures, and only the discussion
and implementation of the development stages are addressed, with no focus given to ways
of increasing adaptation when it comes to implementing strategies.
• Expert & Community perceptions:
Experts: The sources of the findings reported in this section are from the professional actors’
questionnaire:
Questions: 7 Sections: All
Questions: 8 Sections: All
Questions: 11 Sections: A
The experts reported that understanding of CC and its impacts within the development
process of Media City is seen to have been considered, which will have a positive effect on
the future adaptation process and capacity. However, having organised adaptation toolkits
it is still not a clear matter in the Media City development process.
The experts identified that the CC impacts are important to be taken into consideration,
depending on the type of impacts in that area. Regarding the effects of the CC, the experts
indicate that the ‘Extreme Weather Events’ are considered having the highest effect,
followed by the effects of flood & drought. They agreed on the existence of CC Risks as a
threat that is caused by the CC. There is a lower level of agreement, however, for the effects
of Sea Level Rise, Temperature changes, and Precipitation changes. Table (5-7) shows the
findings on this issue here, regarding question seven. It should be said that the coding using
SPSS for this question was: (Yes=1, No=0).
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
147
Table 5. 7: The Influences of Climate Change Impacts
Options N Mean Influence on Performance
Extreme Weather events 13 0.77
Precipitation Changes effects 13 0.54
Flood Risks effects 13 0.54
Drought Risks effects 13 0.54
Sea Level Rise effects 13 0.38
Temperature Changes effects 13 0.38
Also, when it comes to the effects of Climate Change on the water infrastructure or
resources, the experts referred to the importance of these matters. They have
simultaneously demonstrated that the effects of the CC impacts of ‘Extreme Weather Events’
& CC Risks & ‘Precipitation’ are influencing water changes to a great extent. The ‘Sea level
Rise’ and ‘Temperature Changes’ are having less of an effect on the water and the adoption
of strategies that influence adaptation, as (5-8) demonstrates with the findings of question
(8). It should be said that coding using SPSS for this question was: (Low extent=1, Moderate
extent=2, Great Extent=3 & Very great Extent=4).
Table 5. 8: the effects of CC Impacts on Water Infrastructure
Options N Mean Influence on Performance
Extreme Weather Events_ Water Infrastructure
13 3.31
Flood Risks _Water Infrastructure 13 3.31
Precipitation Changes _ Water Infrastructure
13 2.92
Drought Risks _ Water Infrastructure 13 2.85
Temperature Changes _Water Infrastructure
13 2.46
Sea Level Rise 12 2.42
Community: The participants mentioned that the role of the local authority or municipal
institutions, represented by the Role of Salford City Council could be described as the
main party, responsible for addressing the issues associated with sustainability and CC
adaptation in Media City. Regarding this, four participants agreed on the importance of
the practical aspects of environmental sustainability, and they agreed that in Media City
there are useful available strategies for achieving environmental sustainability strategies.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
148
Notably, in relation to recycling matters, Employee 6 commented ‘In terms of
sustainability, there is more focus on this issue, but definitely not climate change.’ The
focus on sustainability is clearly greater in MediaCity than the focus on CC, as CC is not
seen as one of the priorities for the authority and others in governance when it comes to
making the community aware of this issue. However, this is what the MediaCity
community have indicated during the sessions.
Another participant found that the role of the council is important in addressing the
required documents that constitute knowledge about CC besides information about
sustainability. ‘In the council, the materials and the reports are probably there about the
climate change aspects’ Employee 5 – Occupant 12. However, they do not have
knowledge about this in any depth and do not express this with great certainty.
However, at the same time, the participants gave a negative response regarding the
available information about CC and the awareness or knowledge that is required about
CC and adaptation strategies through the websites or any other source for information.
They referred to the need to focus more on CC information availability and also general
information about the development itself, as well as adaptation with regards to
developing information and existing access to knowledge which can raise awareness.
One student has said ‘I do not remember seeing anything around here as posts or
anything related to sustainability. I feel we know just the general things’ Student 5. This
means that being in MediaCity is not providing them with suitable knowledge about
sustainability and adaptation, despite the project being developed to be an original
sustainable community. Another respondent demonstrated that being in Media City has
not changed their knowledge about sustainability or CC, stating: ‘I wouldn’t say my
knowledge has changed – I get all my information from newspapers, websites and TV
news. I’m not sure that information is readily available around Media City’ Employee 7,
Occupant 11.
Summary – C.4:
Accordingly, for this characteristic, and as acknowledged in chapter three, the strategies
used for the promotion of sustainability in the water sector have been successfully
implemented in MediaCity.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
149
The experts reported positive feedback about the information level relating to CC
impacts, and their influences on water is acknowledged. However, the participants from
the local community have indicated that while the sustainable strategies were
implemented, they do not know about them, and communication and awareness of
these strategies do not exist, indicating more attention is needed in this respect.
• C.4: Shared/Participatory Ways of Knowledge
This characteristic is associated with participation among actors in order to increase the
sharing of information and knowledge transfer.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
The analysis of this characteristic across the four indicators of BC indicates that this
characteristic is differently presented across the indicators, where the first two indicators
are evaluated as neutral in their coverage of this characteristic, while the optional
indicators of GO03 & GO04 are considered as not promoting resilience aspects in
association to this characteristic and might hinder resilience, as table (5-9) shows.
Table 5. 9: the analysis of C.4 in the governance context of BC
Theme Characteristic
Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
Consultation Plan
Consultation and engagement
Design review
Community management of facilities
AG-2 C.4
0 0 -1 -1
For indicators GO01 & GO02, as mentioned earlier, the consultation and engagement process
present the community as an important party that needs to be involved. However, in these
indicators, although an engagement process with the community is acknowledged, the
methods used to invite the community to the consultation process are not indicated.
However, it is important to publicise these meetings among the various groups in the
community, in order to reach them. (Aalst et al 2008) demonstrated the importance of
activities such as surveys, calendars, groups meetings, continued discussions and key
information interviews in order to communicate these issues among the various actors. This
has not happened in Media City yet.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
150
There is also no information about the communication process among the various actors
provided by the experts and the local community, nor is there information shared. Further,
it is mentioned that the facilitator that empowers and leads these consultations should
prepare plans and photos for the community related to the development to explain the final
design. Despite the positivity of adopting these illustration means for communications, these
consultations which they aim to present the final outcome of the design mean that the
community input could be invalid, as the final designs are already decided and their opinions,
personal beliefs and experiences might not be taken into account or align with the plans.
In other words, focusing on the process of sharing information through these two indicators
seems to be built around informing the community about development and the design,
without adopting a reactive engagement process, despite the fact that for building proactive
approaches towards climate resilience, coordinated actions and new mechanisms for
collaboration between the various parties are needed (Tylor and Moench 2012).
Therefore, these two indicators still need to be further demonstrated through understanding
the actors and communication methods that are used to influence the communication
among the communities and higher-level actors. This is considered to be a current challenge
for CC adaptation, where it is argued that the uptake of decision support tools for local
communities is challenging due to many factors, such as financial cost, top-down design of
the tools, poorly designed participation processes and technical complexity (Nkoana et al
2018). Therefore, more focus is needed for the two indicators of GO01 & GO02, which are
evaluated here to have a neutral performance against this characteristic.
For the optional indicators of GO03 & GO04, despite the fact that these two indicators
explicitly focus on community development and management, no participatory approach for
sharing information is embedded in them. They are both related to the role of experts in
leading the process of producing feedback about the development, and the facilities
management responsibility and implementation. No level of sharing information with the
local community during the early engagement process or after occupancy is indicated. The
focus is only on the role of the developers, and their central position in facilitating knowledge
on the community management process as intermediaries, meaning that the community is
neglected during the development process or the occupancy stage.
It is broadly acknowledged that the participatory approach is a more sustainable approach in
project management because all actors, including the communities, are usually taken into
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
151
consideration and they participate in all the various phases of the project (Awa 2017).
However, this issue is not fully addressed here, and needs more focus. In particular, it seems
that the role of the developers as mediators is very strong here, with no real inclusion of the
local community. Therefore, these two indicators are considered negative because they
considered the professional actors’ involvement in their procedures, but not the local
community's.
• Expert & Community Perceptions: Experts: The sources of the findings reported in this section are from the professional actors’
questionnaire:
Question 26 Sections: B & E
The experts who participated in the Media City research demonstrate the process of sharing
information during their participation, and this is considered to be no different from
processes in other locations or in other conventional projects in the UK. The collaboration
among the various actors during governance of the development process to lessen the gaps
between the actors for transfer and sharing of knowledge (e.g. between climatologists,
hydrologists, water engineers, designers, developers, and others) is considered as neither a
positive or negative issue indicated to be ‘Neutral’ when BC is applied. Similarly, the experts
indicate a neutral performance associated with the points that relate to the connection
between the local community and the experts, and the openness through discussions and
meetings among local community and experts to influence their knowledge and their
awareness levels. This is seen across the planning stage or after the delivery of the
development alike, as demonstrated in the related findings of question (26) in table (5-10).
SPSS coding was (Strongly Disagree=1, Disagree=2, Neither Agree or Disagree=3, Agree=4,
Strongly Agree=5, I do not know=88).
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
152
Table 5. 10: Expert responses related to the shared participation of knowledge ways in Media City
Options N Mean Influence on Performance
A BC _Experts Identification_ Responsibility
13 3.31
B BC _Experts Collaboration 13 3.15
D BC_ Information Availability_ Actors
13 3.15
C BC_ Experts & Local Community Connection
13 3.00
E BC _ Openness_ Discussions 13 2.92
It seems that even in the context of sustainability projects in Media City, there is a need for
more focus on the process of engagement with the necessary breadth of actors, including
the adoption of methods applied to address the sharing process of information and transfer
between the various actors. This means that there is a need for more focus on the
characteristics that are associated with building resilient communities, through more
involvement with the development process by communities, to increase their awareness and
connection. At the same time, there should be more focus on the role of experts, particularly
BC actors, and on influencing their role as both intermediaries and mediators in the
development process. This is achieved through creating networks that have more openness
and trust among the participants, and through maintaining the network itself.
Community: Regarding the level of information available to the local community or ways of
sharing information and knowledge about CC or adaptation strategies and sustainability, the
participants indicated that this was an area of weakness, with no acknowledgement of data
availability or sharing. The majority of participants mentioned that they think that the focus
on their priorities and needs in the context of organised meetings and consultations was, to
their knowledge, not addressed in Media City.
However, the participants confirmed that despite the existence of the current stages of
development in Media City, the process of informing them and sharing knowledge about the
development process by any means continues to not be implemented, despite their interest
and desire for involvement as reported in the focus groups. Regarding this, there were (9)
respondents who reported this lack of information, associated negatively with community
knowledge & awareness about CC and various strategies in their neighbourhood. One of the
employees commented on this issue, saying: ‘I don’t know of any forum created to raise
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
153
awareness about climate change and actions taken to contribute [to] tackle the global
problem. To be quite honest, my awareness of environmental issues and concerns originated
more from the national and international media and the public domain than working in the
media city area’ Employee 6.
Summary – C.4:
Accordingly, it can be noted that the experts provided a neutral response regarding this
characteristic, in comparison with the Media City community who have made it clear that
sharing of knowledge or wider participation did not occur at any stage.
C.5: Consider the Physical Performance of Facilities in Relation to Water Strategies
This characteristic is associated with the availability of information about strategies that
address physical actions in the decision-making process, in connection with the collaboration
of various actors.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators: Following the analysis of this characteristic against the four BC indicators, it was found that
both mandatory and optional indicators are showing negative performance, as table (5-11)
shows.
Table 5. 11: the analysis of C.5 in the governance context of BC
Theme Characteristic
Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
Consultation Plan
Consultation and engagement
Design review
Community management of facilities
AG-2 C.5 -1
-1 -1 -1
For the mandatory indicators GO01 & GO02, it is demonstrated that the discussions only
focused on the flood risks. However, this discussion was only about informing the community
that there is a risk and how the assessment is taken, with no discussion about the physical
actions that are needed from the local community to prepare them for the flood risk. What
was found to be reasonably effectively through these indicators was discussion of situations
of development sites with potential risk of flooding, or in other designated areas of ecological
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
154
value. However, this discussion is incomplete and not demonstrated with regards to focusing
on water as an issue and the provided strategies for water usage, consumption and other
scenarios. The indicators do not show effective focus on water management strategies,
because there is no mention of water issues as part of the consultation processes and
engagement. It is acknowledged that in the face of CC challenges, the implementation of
physical actions needs to widen public engagement and understanding of potential impacts
of CC and how they affect the people’s lives and needs, effectively addressed and included
within the engagement process (Pahl -Wostl et al 2007). Therefore, these two indicators do
not have any mention of water issues and their relation to CC impacts, and are considered to
be negative here.
It should be said, however, that there are important strategies that relate to the water
management process and sustainability targets that are applied with the inclusion of
BREEAM Communities as an intermediary in the development process. However, these
strategies seem to be applied and discussed on the top-down level by experts only.
For the optional indicators of GO03, & GO04, it was found that there was no demonstration
of focus on addressing water development matters, nor anything in relation to the
adaptation process, where there is little clarity in addressed aspects that are either enforcing
or hindering resilience. There is no explicit information regarding the adoption of diverse
options or strategies for water management provided, nor are there implementation targets
or acknowledgement of potential linkages with the other environmental, social or economic
impacts that are indicated within these indicators. For both indicators, it is acknowledged
that the engagement process should have a focus on how the development design process
should be addressed in terms of adaptability and flexibility over time, but currently there is
no explicit requirement to focus on water management. This demonstrates that both
indicators could be developed as intermediaries to promote the delivery of adaptive
behaviour for the community during the implementation process and occupancy stages, but
they are not currently ensuring this delivery. Therefore, these indicators are showing
negative performance.
• Expert & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The sources of the findings reported in this section are from the professional actors’
questionnaire:
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
155
Question 29 Sections: All
The experts demonstrated that a focus on the physical performance of water facilities is
considered among the strategies that are applied in Media City. However, a consultation and
engagement process that involves the community and these strategies is not in place. The
experts in Media City demonstrate that, when it comes to addressing the effective
performance of all facilities and particularly the water facilities, there are important
strategies in place that influence physical performance. These are based on water supply,
consumption, ecological strategies, but they demand more focus, as table (5-12) shows. The
experts indicated that the strategies associated with wastewater, sanitation and ecology are
only considered slightly. The strategies related to water supply issues, through the adoption
of flexible strategies or in association with water harvesting, were found by experts to not
have been effectively considered in Media City. As demonstrated in the table of the experts'
responses, they responded negatively. The SPSS coding for this question (29) was (Not at all
Considered=1, Slightly Considered=2, Moderately Considered=3, Highly Considered=4, I do
not Know=88).
Table 5. 12: Expert responses regarding the applied strategies which influence the physical performance of facilities (water)
Options N Mean Influence on Performance
Diverse Strategies_ Flexibility_ Water Supply 12 1.25
Water Harvesting_ Water Supply 12 1.25
Efficiency _ Waste water Plan 12 1.75
Efficiency_ Wastewater_ Reclamation 12 1.50
Efficiency_ Facilities_ Sanitation 12 1.58
Vital Ecology Strategy_ Mechanisms 12 1.58
Community: The participants mentioned that there is no information regarding
understanding the water facilities and their sustainability in the development, through the
specific engagement processes or programs in Media City. However, they acknowledged the
existence of sustainability in Media City regarding water specifically, where there is an
acknowledged and observable focus on this issue in their buildings and facilities.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
156
For instance, one of the participants commented on the water consumption strategies,
saying: ‘Regarding the water consumption, there is some red technology, when you want to
have hot water, so there is equipment to control that, I think it’s great. I still think it’s a
personal responsibility. And regarding the existence of anything to educate the community, I
do not think so.’. As seen, there is a level of positivity regarding the application physical
strategies related to water consumption issues in Media City. However, they were not feeling
obliged to use the water resources wisely, but they felt that the existence of the physical
strategies in buildings is enough.
Also, there are other participants who have positively described the strategies related to
water saving in their buildings. ‘About the sustainability, I think the building has a lot working
for you, like water, and recycling. Even if these things are automatic, I have to do things right
elsewhere.’ Employee 4
Summary – C.5:
Accordingly, the experts here have referred to the existence of water strategies in the
building and facilities in Media City in a slightly negative way. The community here found that
the water sustainable strategies in their communities or neighbourhoods are implemented
and performed in a positive way.
For BC indicators, the focus on the application of physical strategies of facilities is negatively
indicated. This is because these consultations should be focusing on sustainability application
process and strategies, including water sustainability, in the Media City project. However,
there was only attention given to flooding.
5.2.3 AG-3: Continuous Monitoring & Evaluation
C.6: Monitoring and Continuous Evaluation of Development Facilities
This characteristic is associated with the availability of the central efforts and programs as
intermediaries that are capable of addressing the monitoring process of the water facilities,
and to address the adaptive behaviour of these facilities.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators: The analysis of this characteristic across the four indicators of BC shows that this
characteristic is found to be negative in association with the two mandatory indicators, while
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
157
both negative and positive performance is coded for the optional indicators, as table (5-13)
demonstrates.
Table 5. 13: the analysis of C.6 in the governance context of BC
Theme Characteristic
Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
Consultation
Plan
Consultation and
engagement
Design
review
Community management
of facilities
AG-3 C.6 -1 -1 -1 +1
For the mandatory indicators GO01& GO02, it is acknowledged that there is a focus on
addressing the priorities associated with the performance of the development, and the
evaluation process. However, there are no central efforts related to this issue up to the level
of setting practical steps and considering monitoring procedures for the facilities, whether
for professionals or local communities. It is mentioned that the monitoring process happens
when the fourth indicator of community management GO04 is applied. Therefore, these two
mandatory indicators are negative here, and not addressing this characteristic.
For the optional indicators GO03 & GO04, it is considered that the GO03 indicator only
addresses the review process of the development proposal and integrates evaluation of the
engagement of the local community regarding the opinions of the local community and
deciding whether their opinions are considered or not. It is mentioned that the design review
is defined as: ‘‘Design review is a process where an independent and inter-disciplinary panel
of built environment experts will review design proposals and assess the overall design
quality’’ (BREEAM COMMUNITIES, 2012, P72), but there is no inclusion of the monitoring
process. Therefore, this is considered as a negative indicator. For GO04, it is acknowledged
that if this indicator is applied, there are efforts made addressing the management issue in
connection with the monitoring matter, addressed when it comes to identifying the party
that is responsible for the management of facilities. This also allows the local community a
chance to decide whether they want to be a part of the monitoring of facilities, in
collaboration with the local authority and the developers. Therefore, this indicator seems to
be important for this characteristic, and holds positive performance.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
158
• Expert & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The source of the findings reported in this section is the professional actors' questionnaire:
Question 34 Sections: C
Question 30 Sections: D & E
The experts of Media City have demonstrated that a focus on the risks tools and indicators is
in existence, and they agreed that there is some negativity in the level of focus regarding risk
assessment as tools in Media City.
The experts demonstrated that the BREEAM Communities has neutral performance
regarding the influence of ‘continuous monitoring reports to follow up the participation and
communication of actors. Mainly, during the governance process, this intermediary role of
BREEAM Communities sometimes influences the issue of ‘continuous evaluation of the
decisions and methods used’, but not sufficiently. However, the experts demonstrated that
the there is a need for more focus and enhancement in the BREEAM Communities regarding
the importance of monitoring issues for communities after occupancy, particularly through
more focus on ‘Organising monitoring reports after the occupancy stage’. Thus, this issue is
not sufficiently managed by BC, and it was reported negatively by the experts.
Community: The participants stated that there are no programs that they acknowledge were
for facilities monitoring in their neighbourhood. They refer to these aspects as being ‘taken
care of by the developers. Some of the respondents have referred to the need to
communicate with the developers about their neighbourhoods and about the management
of facilities in their neighbourhoods.
It is acknowledged that there is a need to direct efforts towards applying methods which can
enhance adaptive capacity of the population and to reduce exposure to CC. This is achieved
by, not only through focusing on how certain impacts could affect a community, but also with
the process of inclusion of the various communities in the process of preparing for and
monitoring these impacts (Agrawal 2008). The communities monitoring and management
plans are not excluded in this context, and this also demands opening communication
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
159
channels between the local communities and experts to make communication about the
community management process an important part of the governance process as well.
Summary – C.6:
Accordingly, the experts indicated that the role of this characteristic when BC is applied in
Media City associates with the monitoring in a negative matter. The community feedback
about the existence of monitoring aspects through the inclusion of various actors in Media
City is also negatively coded.
In BC, the indicators have negative outcomes, except for the optional indicator, GO04.
5.2.4 AG-4: Develop Capacities when Dealing with Climate Change
• C.7: Develop Possible Actions of Facilities in Response to Risks
This characteristic is associated with addressing the physical actions related to the
inclusion of strategies that influence the community well-being strategies, and
developing the strategies to be effectively prepared.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
The analysis of this characteristic across the five indicators of BC shows that the
mandatory indicators are more likely to show positive performance for this
characteristic, while optional indicators are showing negative and positive performance
respectively, as table (5-14) shows.
Table 5. 14: the analysis of C.7 in the governance context of BC
Theme Characteristic
Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
Consultation Plan
Consultation and engagement
Design review
Community management of facilities
AG-4 C.7 +1 +1 0 +1
For the mandatory indicators GO01& GO02, it is acknowledged that the first indicator focuses
on the flood risks assessment issue, which is to be discussed with the community. It is
acknowledged that the intermediary planning control measures for floods are planned
without participation of the affected communities and other stakeholders are regarded as
unsustainable as they do not meet the needs of relevant actors. This situation could be
overcome by establishing participatory planning processes that require more participation
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
160
from various governments, non-governmental and private actors alongside public
participation. However, as said earlier, discussion about this issue is brief, and does not cover
the preparation strategies for community preparation and management of a flood. This
would need more effort, time available, larger budget as well as more equipment, facilities
and human resources, allowing for integration of flood risks management for both long term
and short-term activities (Tingsanchali 2012). There is a level of positivity here, yet it still
needs further enhancement regarding linking the community more, and not focusing on
briefly mentioning the physical applied strategies only.
For the optional indicators, GO03 does not show any focus on this issue, with no single piece
of information on the effects of the risks and the process of development through feedback
between the community and other experts, during the development stages or afterwards.
For GO04, it is acknowledged that management and maintenance of facilities regarding the
environmental changes exists, through the training and user manuals provided to the
responsible party on the operation and maintenance of the community facilities, particularly
in relation to sustainable design and technologies with which users may be unfamiliar. This
makes this a positive indicator.
• Expert & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The sources of the findings reported in this section are from the professional actors’
questionnaire:
Question 27 Sections: All
Regarding the priorities associated with protection from risks, the experts in Media City have
demonstrated that the strategies associated with protecting people's lives and their health
from the risks are seen neutrally, as table (5-15) shows. The implication of the strategies
which influence adaptation to risks of the facilities or utilities and the management process
is seen to be neutral as well. The experts demonstrate that there are strategies that relate to
the physical performance of facilities, in association with the risks and CC impacts, related to
the supply, sewerage, maintenance & management for the options of: ‘Preparation _Water
Supply_ Management’, ‘Sewerage Utilities Maintenance’, ‘Focus_ Risks Assessment_
Indicators’, ‘Focus_ Water Risks_ Human Health’, and ‘Flood Management_ Linkage_ CC
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
161
projection’ found in Media City. However, none of these were considered as positive or
negative points. The overall performance of these points is neutral. However, the point that
relates to the Focus_ Risks Assessment_ Indicators is found to have a better level of
performance than the other points. This is seen in the table below. The SPSS coding for (27)
was (Strongly Disagree=1, Disagree=2, Neither Agree or Disagree=3, Agree=4 & Strongly
Agree=5).
Table 5. 15: Expert responses on the strategies that influence capacity for risks
Options N Mean Influence on Performance
Preparation _Water Supply_ Management
13 3.08
Sewerage Utilities_ Maintenance 13 3.23
Focus_ Risks Assessment_ Indicators 13 3.46
Focus_ Water Risks_ Human Health 13 3.15
Flood Management_ Linkage_ CC projection
13 3.23
Valid N (listwise) 13
Community: The participants mainly indicate that they have no concerns related to risks of
flooding and drought. This is because they consider being in Media City makes them feel safer
in this regard. One of the participants referred to the importance of the feeling of security in
this area with the existence of the river. ‘I’m not worried, although the water levels did get
quite high two years ago. In general, I feel safer here than I would if was next to a river in
somewhere like Berkshire’ (Employee 7/Occupant 11). Primarily, the community found that
care and attention were given to the facilities, and with the existence of the ship's canal, the
influence of flooding and its potential risks could be taken into consideration.
However, certain participants mentioned that they have seen a rise in the sea level, and while
they have only slight concerns about it now, they thought it might be a serious concern in
the future.
Summary – C.7:
Accordingly, experts attached both positive and neutral levels of response towards this
characteristic. The community participants found that the strategies are in place to take care
of the various facilities and buildings in the site, so they referred to this characteristic as being
positively managed in Media City.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
162
In BC, the performance of indicators was mostly positive. However, there is a need for further
enhancement regarding community preparation to risks through the governance process.
5.3 Results & Discussion:
5.3.1 AG characteristics & BC Indicators:
The analysis above, as summarised in table (5-16), suggests that the characteristics of C. 1 &
C. 2& C. 3 are showing a relatively positive performance across the indicators. C. 5 & C. 6 are
the characteristics with most negative performance. It can also be noted that the optional
indicators have been evaluated to present the most negative performance, particularly
regarding C. 4 & C. 5. GO03 is the indicator that is showing the most negative performance,
followed by GO04.
Table 5. 16: Adaptive Governance Characteristics & BC Indicators
Adaptive Governance Characteristics
Mandatory Indicators Optional Indicators
GO1 GO2 GO3 GO4
P NU NE P NU NE P NU NE P NU NE
C.1: Broad inclusion of actors for Effective Management
C.2: Strong local Institution support
C.3: Focus/Incorporation of information and understanding the impacts of Climate Change & Potential Risks
C.4: Shared/Participatory Ways of Knowledge
C.5: Physical performance of facilities regarding the water strategies
C.6: Monitoring and Continuous Evaluation of Development Facilities
C.7: Develop the possible actions of facilities for the protection from flood risks
• P: Positive
• Nu: Neutral
• Ne: Negative
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
163
5.3.2 AG characteristics & Actor Perceptions:
The analysis discussed above shows that the experts have coded positive responses for C. 1,
C: 2 & C. 3, while for the same characteristics, the community feedback was negative, as (5-
17) shows.
Table 5. 17: perceptions of experts & local community on the Adaptive Governance Characteristics
Adaptive Governance Characteristic Experts Local Communities P Nu Ne P Nu Ne
C.1: Broad inclusion of actors for Effective Management
C.2: Local Institution support
C.3: Focus/Incorporation of information and understanding the impacts of Climate Change & Potential Risks
C.4: Shared/Participatory Ways of Knowledge
C.5: Consider the physical performance of facilities regarding the water strategies
C.6: Monitoring and Continuous Evaluation of Development Facilities
C.7: Develop the possible actions of facilities for the
protection from flood risks
Primarily, the community participants coded more negative responses associated with the
adaptive governance characteristics than the expert respondents did. The only
characteristics that are positively indicated by the community are C. 5 & C. 7.
It can also be noted from the table that both experts and community have indicated negative
responses for C. 2 and have also agreed that there is positive performance for C. 7.
It should be said that from the integration of results of both tables (5-16) & (5-17), that
despite a positive performance for the characteristics of C. 1 & C. 3 in both indicator analysis
and expert analysis, the local community have coded these characteristics as negative, as
demonstrated in table (5-18). It is also noticed that C. 5 & C. 6 are those characteristics with
most consistently negative performance across the BC indicators. There is negative
performance indicated by the experts for C. 5 and from both experts & community for C. 6.
Accordingly, C. 6 is prioritised as the characteristic that requires enhancement most, followed
by C. 2, both coded negatively by experts as well as community.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
164
Further to C. 2, the characteristic C. 3 is also considered to be one that requires
enhancement, as it is negatively coded in the fourth indicator and at the community context.
In contrast to C. 7, this is considered the least prioritised indicator and requires
enhancement.
Table 5. 18: integration of findings in BC indicators & actors’ perception towards AG characteristics
AG characteristics
Governance Indicators Actors
GO01 GO02 GO03 GO04 Experts Community
C.1: Broad inclusion of actors for Effective Management
C.2: Local Institution support
C.3: Focus/Incorporation of information and understanding the impacts of Climate Change & Potential Risks
C.4: Shared/Participatory Ways of Knowledge
C.5: Include the ways that consider the physical performance of water facilities during the consultation process
C.6: Monitoring and Continuous Evaluation of Development Facilities
C.7: Develop the possible actions of facilities for
the protection from flood risks
5.4 Community Level
It is demonstrated in chapter 2 that there are three main themes related to the Resilient
Community, based on the literature studies, which are:
• RC-1: Nature of Community
• RC-2: Community Adaptive Behaviour towards their Facilities and Built Environment
• RC-3: Community Well-being
It is acknowledged that for these themes there are 5 characteristics considered as the
operational points for the analysis. Table (5-19) shows the themes and characteristics of
Resilient Community
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
165
Table 5. 19: Resilience community themes & Characteristics
Resilience community themes & Characteristics
Theme Resilient Communities Characteristic
RC-1: Nature of Community
C.8: Community feeling of attachment & social engagement
RC-2: Community adaptive behaviour towards their facilities and built environment
C.9: Increase the Level of Learning and awareness knowledge
C.10: Effective & Responsive Behaviour for Risks
C.11: Increased Satisfaction with sustainable Physical building strategies
RC-3: Community Well-being
C.12: Enhanced delivery of human Health and well-being
There are 15 indicators that relate to the local community context a, as demonstrated in
table (5-20). As mentioned earlier, the focus of these indicators can be addressed through
dividing these indicators into three main groups.
Table 5. 20: the indicators of BC for the social context
Indicators Abbreviation Optional/Mandatory
Group 1 PCC
Flood Risk Assessment FRA Mandatory
Adapting to Climate Change ACC Optional
Microclimate M Optional
Flood Risk Management FRM Optional
Group 2 CSW
Demographic Needs and Priorities DNP Mandatory
Noise Pollution NP Mandatory
Delivery of Services, Facilities and Amenities
DSFA Optional
Utilities Us Optional
Green Infrastructure GI Optional
Local Parking LP Optional
Local Vernacular LV Optional
Housing Provision HP Optional
Inclusive Design ID Optional
Public Realm PR Optional
Light Pollution LP Optional
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
166
5.4.1 RC-1: Nature of Community
• C.8: Community Feeling of Attachment & Social Engagement
This characteristic is associated the feeling of belonging a community has with their
neighbourhood, through inclusion of the various community members in meetings and
activities which empower the community to be involved in their development, facilities
adaptation and sustainability.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
The analysis of this characteristic across BC indicators shows that for both groups 1 & 2 there
are indicators from both groups that have positive and neutral performance, but the majority
of indicators present neutral performance, as table (5-21) shows.
Table 5. 21: the analysis of C.8 for the social indicators of BC
Theme
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2
Mandatory Optional PPC
Mandatory Optional CSW
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
RC_1
C.8 0 0 0 +1 +1 0 +1 0 0 0 0 0 +1 0
For group 1's mandatory indicator FRA, it is acknowledged that this indicator is important for
the prevention of flood risks at the development site. However, for this characteristic, it is
seen that information about flood risks is gathered from the local community, which is
important for the authority and other experts. It is also acknowledged that this information
is not gathered or developed through any community engagement. Therefore, this indicator
shows room for improvement.
The table shows that, for optional indicator PPC, there is neutral performance in association
with this characteristic, except for the indicator FRM. This indicator is primarily employed in
the planning process by the authority and other experts. There is no mention of the
availability of routes to involve the local community in across the adaptation process related
to Climate Change impacts or various risks scenarios, either through specific programs or
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
167
through the risks being addressed as isolated scenarios. This is more likely dependent on
information considered by specific external professionals, without an allowance for the local
communities to access intermediary information resources or to interact, which is weakly
addressed here, and does not seem to allow any outcome change for the communities.
For the FRM, chapter 3 shows that this indicator is important when it comes to supporting
communities' active involvement in developing, managing and/or owning selected facilities.
These points are important for the development of a sense of belonging in the community,
through understanding overall development, working together in managing their facilities,
and partnerships with developers.
For group 2, the mandatory indicator DNP is important, where it is acknowledged that the
local demographic and priorities of the communities are considered the basis for building
development plans related to the provision of facilities and amenities. The positivity of this
indicator in relation to this characteristic is related to the consultations and meetings which
involve members of the local community from citizens, schools and business workers. In
these situations, they discuss their local needs regarding the proposed development and
sustainability matters. The opinions of community members are gathered and then discussed
with the local authorities, to ensure delivery of required functions on an appropriate
timescale and to ensure that demands are fulfilled. Therefore, this engagement of
community in the development of their neighbourhood and facilities is what makes this
indicator positive. The other mandatory indicator NP is important for noise mitigation, but
there is no information on the ways noise can be mitigated in the indicator in relation to this
characteristic.
Finally, for the optional CSW indicators of this group, the indicators do not have a focus on
this characteristic, except for the PR indicator. The latter is considered important, which
encourages social interaction between the community members through the design of the
social spaces. Thus, this indicator is considered positive, because its application is vital in
connecting community members across various events and activities.
• Expert & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The source of the findings reported in this section id the professional actor questionnaire:
Question 11 Sections: D
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
168
The experts were asked if there were applied strategies in the governance process and the
development in Media City that have involved community engagement or participation as
main strategies implemented to increase the feeling of belonging in Media City, and the
response was negative.
Community: The participants have discussed the sense of community and feeling of
belonging from different perspectives. Some of them felt that these aspects exist in Media
City, while the majority had negative perceptions on this matter. This majority has provided
various reasons for not have a sense of belonging and sense of being in a community. There
are seven participants from the three groups who have identified the idea that there is no
sense of community, as the area itself is not suitable for families. Instead, it is considered an
area for professionals only. One of the respondents who lives in Media City commented on
this issue, saying: ‘I live here, and I do not see a lot of families here. It is more for couples’
(Occupant 5). Another participant identified that this area does not have the characteristics
of a location suitable for families, with its changeable nature of the place and focus on
business, saying: ‘I don’t think it’s a ‘kid friendly place’. Media City is primarily a work place
and phase 2 development will greatly expand this. An increasing number of people will come
into Media City to work and leave at the end of the day. This is likely to add to road congestion
and overcrowding on trams. And there are not many shops in here’ (Occupant 8)
Certain participants also indicated that, despite the project being still under development,
they did not feel that future development will change the image of the Media City project.
They thought the development has been for professionals mostly and particularly young
professionals, instead of families. This is a main reason for the respondents deciding not to
want to settle in Media City.
They considered that the changeability of the place makes it feel like the area is complex,
which is a different perspective to the image of the community that they have in their mind.
There are four participants who have addressed that living in this area has also made them
feel that they do not belong to this area… ‘This site is complicated, and it gathers media
people and students, who are busy all the time. People are coming and going and it is a
challenge to create a community environment here. The people of the BBC think that the place
is ‘Cold’ and ‘Soulless’ (Employee3).
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
169
The participants mentioned that there is no inclusion of local community in the development
and decision-making process. However, there is a desire from the local communities to be
involved in such events. For instance, a participant mentioned a need for involvement of the
local community in the development process, particularly when it comes to the
environmental aspects. He said that: ‘I think it would have been wise to involve the
community, like for example having a say in keeping more green areas, through effective
communication of environmental protection strategies, meetings, social events, surveys etc.’
(Employee 6). The participants demonstrated, however, that there is a need to make facilities
for such events, and through producing more intermediary publications and available
information to publicise these events and meetings.
On the other hand, there are participants who have commented on this characteristic in
general and considered it as being positive. Some of the participants thought that there were
good points to Media City, which made them feel they had the sense they were living in a
special place, particularly regarding the natural environment. Two of these participants
considered that the existence of water is important for making this place special and make
them feel a sense of community in this place: ‘The ‘Water’ is quite significant. Not everybody
is living/working next to this big water. I feel sometimes it is a ‘sea’ to me’’ (Employee 2). Fig
(5-1) shows the view of the river in Media City.
Figure 5.1 View of the river in Media City- taken by the researcher
Another participant found that the gardens were what made this place special, saying: ‘the
square is very nice in the summer and everyone comes out, and walks in the gardens, which
makes the project really special’’ (Employee 3). The respondents also mentioned that living
here were also encouraging of a healthier life style, to practice sport in these areas. The
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
170
existence of green spaces among the residential areas is important and has improved
people's lifestyle and opportunities, and this has increased interaction among residents, as
fig (5-2) shows.
Figure 5.2 open green spaces in Media City – photo taken by the researcher
In this regard, when the participants were asked whether they had suggestions for
enhancements, there were three of the respondents who agreed that there was a need to
enhance the area in relation to the physical built environment, through having more facilities
such as open areas, areas for kids and entertainment areas. For instance, one of the
participants said:
‘We need more green places to gather and more little shops such as local newsagents, beauty
shops or butchers where there is personal service and the owners get to know you.
These are considered as barrier to an emerging sense of community. It's a new place to live
in and needs more people living locally and then more facilities will come’ Occupant 2.
Furthermore, the participants indicated that this characteristic is strongly related to the
efforts of Salford Council and the developers in the area. It was thought that these parties
were the powers that manage the area. In total, 7 participants agreed that the role of the
Council was negative with regards to community empowerment and engagement aspects,
despite the success of the City Council in addressing the environmental and physical aspects,
as they pointed out. The focus on the environmental aspects in Media City is considered as
positive. Current positive outcomes are as a result of the continuous efforts of the Salford
City Council, with one employee saying:
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
171
‘Salford City council plays a good role in developing new eco-friendly homes in Salford. This
is not the case for community participation issues.’ (Employee 3)
Similarly, another employee from another group commented: ‘For Salford City Council's role,
the new council houses here in Salford are nice, they are really gorgeous. And they are
environmentally friendly. But they do not regard the community.’ (Employee 1)
Summary – C.8:
Accordingly, experts have mentioned that there is no sense of community and engagement
in Media City, and this considered as a negative issue. While for the local community, the
majority thought this is a negative issue, and they have attached positive responses as well.
Therefore, the performance of this characteristic is coded as both positive and negative.
In BC, the majority of indicators show neutral performance, except for four indicators which
show positive performance.
5.4.2 RC-2: Community Adaptive Behaviour towards their Facilities and Built
Environment
• C.9: Increase the Level of Learning and Awareness Knowledge
This characteristic is associated with an increase of the level of learning among communities,
when the associated indicators are applied here.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
The analysis of the characteristic across the four relevant indicators of BC shows that this
characteristic is more likely neutrally indicated, as table (5-22) shows.
Table 5. 22: the analysis of C.9 of the social indicators of BC
Theme
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2
Mandatory
Optional PPC
Mandatory Optional CSW
FRA ACC
M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
RC_1
C.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
172
Both groups of indicators are constructed on the basis of incorporating local knowledge from
the community in the design of strategies which can influence the community and
environmental sustainability. However, the ways that the engagement and collaboration
among the community is undertaken when gathering the information are ineffective. These
engagements through the intermediary of the consultation plan do not depend on interactive
learning and feedback from community members, whether at the planning stage or
afterwards. This is because the applied strategies through the indicators are considered in
isolation from the local communities, and with no incorporation or real involvement of the
local communities in the development stages of post occupancy. Therefore, all the indicators
are more likely to be of a neutral influence regarding awareness knowledge and learning
among the community members. The development of these indicators is more likely to
depend on the experts’ knowledge. However, as discussed earlier, the adoption of the
language of experts limits the discovery of indigenous resources and reduces the likelihood
of people interacting and collaborating with each other (Perkins and Zimmerman, 1995).
The involvement of communities doesn’t seem to be presented as a vital outcome of these
indicators, despite the importance of collaborative groups aiming to develop and sustain new
organizational structures, processes, and strategies (Cheng and Sturtevant 2012). This is not
the case in BC, where there is no focus on creation collaboration and interaction environment
among the communities, to develop the learning skills and strategies.
• Expert & Community perceptions: Experts:
The source of the findings reported in this section is the professional actors’ questionnaire:
Question 33 Sections: B
For the experts, this characteristic is considered as not being well delivered. After the
inclusion of BC in Media City, when the experts were asked whether there is a level of
enhancement needed regarding community access to information, the majority of experts
responded that ‘no knowledge is available’. This indicated that this characteristic is not
sufficiently considered in MediaCity in general.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
173
Community: Regarding awareness knowledge in association with CC and sustainability in
Media City, the participants indicated that there is still a need to focus on this issue, as they
thought that there is a lack of information available for these aspects.
There were three participants who referred to the negative role of PEEL (the Developer)
towards focusing on sustainability and climate change issues in Media City. They have
suggested that the developers, as mediators, are not making sufficient efforts towards
providing the community with the necessary level of awareness towards their environment.
‘I feel PEEL is working hard for a lot of issues, to make things look and work great, but, not
regarding the climate change issue, as we do not feel the directors or managers of PEEL are
encouraging [the community] to know information about climate change. There is
information about sustainability, but about climate change, nothing.’ Employee 1
Therefore, more focus on the collaboration and engagement process of the community is
required, as the respondents stated. There is one participant who commented on the
importance of the collaboration process among the community and other parties, saying: ‘I
think there is a need for better relations or collaboration among the council, developers, and
the community and to be involved with the developments and issues which impact my
residence.’ (Employee 5/ Occupant 12). These efforts by the various leading actors in the area
need to be centred on the involvement of the communities, and to be extended to all the
community individuals, not just with the young experts. This is of particular relevance given
the ongoing nature of the development project of Media City, which will house more families
eventually.
The participants reported that this issue in general needs enhancement regarding the
existence of coordinated efforts between the developers and Salford City Council, to
contribute towards addressing climate change concerns. Most of the participants indicated
that they want to be a part of these plans or the strategies that could be applied in this regard.
They refer to the importance of having information available in Media City.
However, at the same time, three participants have highlighted the role of Salford City
Council as being positive in influencing an increase in knowledge about the sustainability,
through applying some strategies and enforcing them. ‘For the role of Salford City Council,
they enforced a lot of things here. The recycling here is also enforced’ (Employee 3). The
learning by doing approach is a strategy that is importantly encouraged in Media City,
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
174
including regarding the recycling issue, and these are positive aspects for community
resilience development.
Summary – C.9:
Accordingly, experts have attached a negative response to this characteristic, compared
with the local community who have attached both positive & negative responses.
• C.10: Effective & Responsive Behaviour for Risks
This characteristic is associated with addressing the aspects that encourage various people
to be effectively prepared when risks occur.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators: The analysis of this characteristic across the two groups of BC indicators shows all the
indicators here are classified as having neutral performance in relation to this characteristic,
except M_FRA & O_FRM where they are showing positive performance, as table (5-23)
demonstrates.
Table 5. 23: the analysis of C.10 of the social indicators of BC
Theme
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2
Mandatory
Optional PPC
Mandatory Optional CSW
FRA ACC M FRM
DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
RC_1
C.10 +1 0 0 +1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
For group 1, regarding the mandatory indicator FRA, it is acknowledged that this indicator is
applied to ensure that flood risks are taken into consideration in the development, through
the application of measures that aim to reduce the risks of flooding. It is associated with
acknowledging that the assessment process is built based on the inclusion of the minimum
knowledge of the local community, integrated with the local authority strategic assessment
role.
It is recognised that there is best practice and an intermediary planning policy regarding the
avoidance of the developing sites that have risks of flooding, and if it’s not possible to avoid
the flooding, measures are taken to defend or protect the development. With the addition
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
175
of the safety measures, an emergency plan is started when the flooding occurs. It appears
that the preparation of physical measurements, assessment & calculation are efficiently
completed, but do not regard community responsiveness or response to them.
Similarly, for the optional FRM, this issue is also constructed around the discharge, volume
run-offs and flow rate as important physical indicators. However, the homeowners of the
community, and other actors in community organisations and facilities, are not taken into
account when it comes to the implementation of insurance and the extent to which this is
affordable for all the community, nor is any input on how these areas can be efficiently
addressed. It is demonstrated that effective calculations are completed by a qualified
professional who provides design criteria for all elements regarding the surface water run-
off drainage system. Therefore, for this indicator, there are effective strategies that are
applied to minimise the risk of localised flooding on and off site, as well as watercourse
pollution and other environmental damage. This means this indicator has positive
performance in relation to this characteristic. For the other two optional indicators, there is
no information that influences responsive behaviour towards risks.
Finally, for group 2, the mandatory indicators of DNP & No are not showing a level of
information related to this characteristic. Similarly, for the optional indicators, there is no
information on raising this characteristic. These indicators are more likely of neutral influence
here.
• Experts & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The sources of the findings reported in this section are from the professional actor’s
questionnaire:
Question 33 Sections: A, B
The experts identified that the level of responsibility in the local community towards the
resources at the individual level, and the effective behaviour that is associated with
collaborative thinking that happens at the community levels, are not positively viewed.
Community: Regarding this characteristic, the participants have identified that building their
adaptive behaviour towards their building and facilities has not been influenced by their
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
176
existence in the BREEAM communities-enabled development. Nine of the participants
agreed on raising the issue that there is no influence towards changing behaviour of
communities in MediaCity, which happen as a result of the application of sustainable
strategies.
Four of the participants mentioned that being in MediaCity has not changed their behaviour
or made them more responsible, even though the buildings are found to be sustainable. They
mentioned that their behaviour is mainly associated with their personal intersts of being
sustainability-conscious people. For instance, one of the respondents said: ‘For me, I have
cared about the idea of recycling since I was 5 years old. Not [because] of being here.’
(Student5).
Two participants referred to the fact that their responsible behaviour towards water is mainly
based on economic reasons and expensive bills. ‘I find the electricity and water bills very high
in my apartment. I am careful with consumption of both water and electricity to keep my bills
as low as possible. It is saving on costs that makes me be careful, not altruistic principles.’
Occupant 8
Finally, some of the participants stated that the building performance is not different from
that of others in other places, regarding applied strategies. Besides, the management process
and addressing of feedback after the post occupancy stage is a troublesome issue, which the
respondents indicated needs enhancement. Three respondents have raised these issues.
‘There is no difference from any other building. I think the whole process of ‘Feedback’ does
not exist. There is always a need to change things, new features requests or otherwise making
things better’. (Employee 5 /Occupant 12). Therefore, it seems that there is a need to focus
more on ways oft empowering communities towards behaving in a more responsible and
adaptive way towards the facilities.
Summary – C.10:
Accordingly, for this characteristic, the experts indicated that this issue is negatively
addressed in MedaCity, compared with the local community who have expressed a neutral
response here for this characteristic.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
177
C.11: Increased Satisfaction with Sustainable Physical building strategies
This characteristic is associated with the sustainable strategies that the buildings constitute
to make the users more satisfied with the performance of the buildings.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators: The analysis of this characteristic shows that the mandatory indicators from both groups are
have positive performance, while the optional indicators seem to have neutral performance,
as table (5-24) shows.
Table 5. 24: the analysis of C.11 of the social indicators of BC
Theme
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2
Mandatory Optional PPC
Mandatory Optional CSW
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
RC_1
C.11 +1 0 0 0 +1 +1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
For group 1, it is acknowledged that the two indicators FRA & FRM are important for the
people’s safety, and they hold some important potentials for resilience. These indicators are
associated with the protection of development sites and their surroundings from flood risks,
where present.
FRA is a significant indicator that comprises strategies that are important for sustainability
and resilience in buildings. It is demonstrated that, as part of this indicator, there are resilient
measures incorporated in building designs to the satisfaction of the relevant statutory body
which address safety for the community. In this indicator, it is demonstrated that the planned
ground level of the buildings and access to the buildings and the site are designed so they
are at least 600mm above the design flood level of the flood zone in which the assessed
development is located. These points are important to be addressed when applying this
indicator. In addition, as demonstrated earlier, an emergency plan is in place in the event of
flooding, as a strategy that is applied through this indicator, whether for buildings or entire
sites. It is also acknowledged that part of this indicator is the relation in place with the
protection of the infrastructure and saving water in times of risks. Mainly, it is expected, with
the application of physical characteristics when BC has sustainability strategies applied, that
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
178
the facilities will have better performance whether for the quantity or quality of water. This
is for all seasons with higher potential for flooding, with maintenance and management plans
available.
However, despite the importance of FRM in managing flooding, the relation of this indicator
with the adoption of buildings' resilience strategies regarding the occupants during flooding
events is not clearly indicated. For the other indicators, there is no specific information to
influence this characteristic in a clear way. However, these indicators are more likely focusing
on addressing the impacts and strategies for adaptation.
For group 2, the first indicator DNP is found to be important in relation to this characteristic.
It was discussed in chapter 3 that this indicator is applied to guarantee that the houses and
various facilities in the neighbourhood are planned and deigned on the basis of local
demographic trends and priorities. The provision of important strategies for suitable delivery
mechanism has been established to ensure delivery of required functions on an appropriate
timescale and to ensure that demands are fulfilled whilst avoiding the creation of facilities
unsustainable in the short-term. Therefore, this indicator is important, and has positive
performance in relation to this characteristic. The other mandatory indicator NP is important
as it comprises the strategies in buildings, related to the location and orientations of
buildings. These strategies are influenced by the results of the noise impact assessment for
the sites. This is mainly undertaken to ensure that the occupants in these buildings and in the
wider development are satisfied and that there is no potential for problems and
inconvenience as a result of the noise levels.
Finally, for the optional indicators of this group, there is no clear information associated
with this characteristic, and so there is a neutral performance evaluation.
• Experts & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The sources of the findings reported in this section are from the professional actors’
questionnaire:
Question 33 Sections: G,C, E
The experts indicated that there are sustainable strategies integrated in the buildings in
Media City, whether for energy or water sustainability issues.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
179
The experts indicated that accessibility to water resources with sufficient water quality &
quantity, and the enhanced level of the technical support that is provided to the facilities for
the community of Media City are considered to be well-delivered issues. However, at the
same time, the experts have identified that there is still a need for further enhancement of
the performance of the physical strategies that are associated with water issues. They
identified that in Media City, aspects associated with the easy use & efficient delivery of the
fixtures for the occupants and the long-term efficient usage of water resources are not well
delivered. The SPSS coding for question thirty-three which constitute 3 points scale was (Not
that well delivered=1, Well Delivered=2, Very Well Delivered=3 &I do not Know=88).
Table 5. 25: Experts perceptions on sustainability strategies in buildings
Options N Mean Influence on Performance
A Responsibility_ Water Use 11 1.36
B Local Community_ Collaborative thinking_ CC
11 0.64
C Easy Use & Efficient Delivery_ Fixtures_ Occupants
10 1.20
D Long Term_ Efficiency_ Water Fixtures
10 1.30
E Enhancement_ Health Surveillance 11 1.64
F Enhancement_ Technical Support_ Water Facilities
11 1.64
G Sufficiency _ Water Quality 11 1.55
Valid N (listwise) 10
Community: For this characteristic, the participants identified that the use of resources,
regarding the water in particular, is considered a positive issue in Media City. They indicated
that that they have experienced no issue with accessibility to resources. It was also
demonstrated that if a problem were to happen, they are confident that these issues would
be addressed.
Four participants agreed on the importance of the sustainability strategies that exist
physically around them in Media City, particularly in the context of the buildings. They
demonstrated that the water usage sustainability in their building through the use of water
saving taps and toilets is considered a positive issue.
‘I like how the buildings are sustainable here. I think you can know about sustainability issues
from the BBC. That essentially, we know from the BBC that these buildings are sustainable
and relatively environmentally friendly’ Employee 2.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
180
There is also a participant who lives in Media City and comments about living in this
neighbourhood, describing it as better compared with their old house in Manchester, saying:
‘I can feel sustainability, in the differences between my house here and my other old house in
Manchester, in terms of insulation. Here you can feel the energy efficiency, or maybe because
it’s new’ Occupant 1
One of the students mentioned that in the university, these strategies are found regarding
energy, but not for other strategies. ‘In the University there are things we can see in using
the automatic lights, and how they save energy. Other than this, there is nothing more than
what has [already been] said.’ Student 1
However, the only concern that they raised was regarding the poor level of information that
is associated with the management of facilities in their buildings.
Summary – C.11:
Overall, the experts identified that there is positive performance associated with the physical
strategies in Media City, with a need for further enhancement of these as well. The local
community has shown that this issue has positive performance.
For the BC indicators, mandatory indicators show positive performance regarding this
characteristic, where optional indicators show neutral performance.
5.4.3 RC-3: Community Well-being
• C.12: Enhanced Delivery of Human Health and Well-Being
This characteristic is associated with community health and well-being regarding various
neighbourhood facilities.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
The analysis of this characteristic across the five relevant indicators of BC shows that these
indicators in total are more likely to have a ‘positive performance in association with this
characteristic, as (5-26) shows.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
181
Table 5. 26: the analysis of C.11 of the social indicators of BC
Theme
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2
Mandatory Optional PPC
Mandatory Optional CSW
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
RC_1
C.12 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
For group 1 indicators, it is recognised that the FRA indicator is important in reducing the
risks of flooding in the development, and to protect people’s lives through setting up energy
plans in the events of flooding. Thus, this indicator is considered to be positive for community
well-being. Similarly, indicator FRM is important in avoiding and minimising risks of flooding
and to protect from water pollution and environmental damages, through strategies of
reduction and delaying of the discharge of rainfall to the watercourses.
The other two optional indicators in this group are considered important in relation to this
characteristic. The ACC application is essential to ensure resilience of development for CC
impacts, through considering the known and predicted CC impacts of increased
temperatures, flood risk, increased weather volatility, impacts on water resources, and
changes in ground conditions.
It is acknowledged that there is no doubt that these effects have direct impacts on people's
lives and wellbeing, and it is widely acknowledged that the increase of temperature and
rainfall, heat waves, floods, and drought have direct and immediate impacts on mortality
rates and other longer-term effects (Haines et al 2006). At the same time, the M indicator is
important in confirming the provision of a comfortable outdoor environment, through
minimising the negative microclimatic factors of temperature/thermal comfort, solar
exposure, air movement and wind speed, dust and pollution, and the acoustic environment.
Therefore, the indicators of this group are all considered important for well-being, and are
thus evaluated as positive for this context.
For group 2, the mandatory indicators DNP & NO are both considered to be important in
relation to this characteristic, in a positive way. DNP is applied and focused on community
wellbeing for all the constituted community groups, including children, the elderly, students,
workers, and the disabled. The focus is also on areas associated with community wellbeing
and social care services such as pharmacies, medical centres and GP surgeries, banks,
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
182
nurseries and children’s playgrounds, communication services such as public internet access,
community buildings, apartments and houses, libraries and schools, green spaces, leisure
facilities and shops. The other mandatory indicator is also important for people's health and
their satisfaction regarding the levels of noise control. Accordingly, both mandatory
indicators of this group are considered positive for this characteristic.
The optional indicators of this group also seem to be important for influencing human health
and well-being, whether through the availability of natural healthy open green spaces with
GI, or through the enhancement of the performance of physical built environments. The
indicators DSF, Us, PR & LP are essential for the enhancement of pedestrian routes,
accessibility to the site, movement and connecting people in the neighbourhood, and parking
areas respectively. Therefore, these indicators associated with the physical built
environment have solid, positive performance for this characteristic.
Finally, the other two indicators, PR & LP2, show importance related to the issues of social
interaction among the community through vibrant public spaces and protecting the streets
and walking areas from glare and light pollution.
• Expert & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The sources of the findings reported in this section are the professional actors’
questionnaires:
Question 33 Sections: F
The experts identified that the delivery of the health aspects in Media City is well-executed.
Community: Regarding health and well-being, the participants have mixed opinions about
this issue in Media City. Some of the opinions were positive, while others were negative.
For the positive community perceptions of this characteristic, there were four participants
who indicated the importance of nature to their health and well-being, through the existence
of the river and the open public green spaces. They described being in this area as important
for their physical and psychological health. They agreed on the importance of the aspects
associated with the site and its facilities. One of the participants has found that the
importance of this aspect is directly related to the presence of water and the quays; ‘I feel
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
183
that living in media city has a great positive impact on my personal and emotional well-being.
From the morning the view of the sunrise with the river gives you a nice feeling to start your
day. Also, at night all the colourful lights give a really nice view to look at.’ (Occupant10).
Figure (5-3) shows the beautiful water view in Media City.
Another participant commented and mentioned the issue of air quality compared with the
other areas of Manchester, and he considered this issue as crucial in Media City. He
commented: ‘The air is better quality, and that makes people’s healthier and allows them to
have a good life style.’ Occupant 1
Figure 5.3 view of the walk areas and river in Media City- taken by the researcher
There were 11 participants who identified aspects that they considered to be negatively
associated with health and well-being in Media City. These perceptions were different, and
mainly associated with either physically built environments or social matters.
Five respondents raised the issue of having no health centres or clinics, seen where two of
them said: ‘There is a need for a pharmacy definitely.’ (Employee 2) and, ‘I think a GP is
important to have here. Other GPs are really far from here.’ (Occupant 1). However,
addressing these health aspects is important for the principles of adaptation to CC.
Prevention through health aspects aims to alleviate the various illnesses or injuries, with
clinical examples including immunization, smoking cessation efforts, and the use of bicycle
helmets. This is also achieved through adopting health sciences & practices which can
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
184
contribute useful information regarding the choice of safe, healthful technologies (Frumkin
et al 2008).
Regarding this, one of the participants also commented that: ‘The place lacks the facilities
that people need such as post office and pharmacy, schools, parks, pharmacy, library, and
activities organisation which create a community and their address their needs’ (Employee
4).
Furthermore, there were participants who mentioned the issue of water pollution, and its
effect on Media City. They considered that there is a need for more care, and for cleaning
the water. One of the respondents added: ‘The water is becoming increasingly polluted with
junk thrown in it (fast food packaging, plastic bottles). The pollution of water needs to be
addressed’ (Occupant 8). The other participant mentioned that this issue could be better
managed, and referred to this issue as being a result of the increase of the population in the
area, as well as visitors to Media City.
Six participants agreed on the negativity of the social aspects that relate to their needs and
priorities in Media City. They felt that the social aspects in general are lacking. They
considered that there is a need for more enhancements in order to improve their well-being,
particularly when it comes to facilities available in their daily life. The four participants raised
the issue of not having a good social life as a problem, for them and for their families.
The participants demonstrated that there is a need for greater levels of socialising through
facilities and activities in their neighbourhood. They consider the community of MediaCity to
be in need of more interaction and socialisation, and there is a need to be seen as part of the
Salford community as well. ‘We do not have a chance to socialise more, or have open spaces,
it’s probably the dock yard.’ (Student 2). This is affecting local communities, including
students.
Finally, nine of the participants have mentioned accessibility to the site and buildings through
the ‘Parking’ areas as a negative in their daily life and their well-being. This issue has been a
problem not only for students and workers, but for the occupants as well. The participants
consider parking a problem that affects people who come to visit the area as well. For
instance, some of the comments were:
‘The car parking here is a ‘nightmare’ & a (massive issue), which hinders the gathering of the
public in varied activities.’ (Occupant 6).
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
185
‘The parking is a problem for the student. It’s an expensive place. If I have the chance to work
here in the future, I will definitely choose to live elsewhere.’ (Student 4).
However, it could be said that the intention is to reduce the use of cars, in order to design
cities of such quality and at a suitable scale that people would not need to have a car
(Banister, 2008), which might be the case in Media City.
This issue could be negative for the well-being of the communities, but at the same time, it
could be important for addressing sustainable mobility, environmental protection and a
healthier life style.
However, while reducing car usage is admirable, it must be undertaken in conjunction with
effective public transport, walking and cycling options. Fig (5.4) shows some of the parking
areas in Media City.
Figure 5. 4 Parking areas in Media City – taken by the researcher
Summary – C.12:
Accordingly, experts have indicated that this characteristic is positively described in Media
City, where the local community has attached mixed opinions, both positive and negative.
It can be noticed that the indicators of this category are showing positive performance in
relation to this characteristic. This issue is expected to have a central focus in this category
of BC.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
186
5.5 Discussions:
5.5.1 Resilient Communities Characteristics & Indicators
The analysis above, as summarised in table (5-27), suggests that the characteristic C. 12
shows positive performance across all indicators associated with this category. The other
characteristics show neutral performance in relation with the BC indicators. However,
characteristic C. 11 is shown to have positive performance across five indicators as well.
Table 5. 27: Resilience Communities Characteristic & Role of BREEAM Communities
Them
e
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2
Mandatory
Optional PPC
Mandatory Optional CSW
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
RC_1
C.8 0 0 0 +1 +1 0 +1 0 0 0 0 0 +1 0
RC_2 C.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C.10 +1 0 0 +1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C.11 +1 0 0 +1 +1 0 0 0 0 +1 0 0 +1
RC_3 C.12 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
5.5.2 Resilient Community Characteristics & Actor Perceptions
The analysis discussed above shows that the experts have coded positive responses for C.11
& C.12, while for the other characteristics, community feedback was both positive and
negative, as (5-28) shows.
The local community has coded both positive and negative responses regarding the same
characteristics of C. 8 & C: 9 & C. 12.
It can be further noted that the table shows both the experts and the community have
indicated negative responses for C.8 & C. 9; and have also agreed on positive performance
for C. 11 & C. 12.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
187
Table 5. 28: experts and community perceptions on Resilience Communities Characteristic
Theme
Resilient Communities Characteristic Experts Local Communities
P Nu Ne P Nu Ne
RC-1: C.8: Community feeling of attachment
& social engagement
RC-2: C.9: Increase the Level of Learning and
awareness
C.10: Effective & Responsive
Behaviour for Risks
C.11: Increased Satisfaction with
sustainable Physical building
strategies
RC-3: C.12: Enhanced delivery of human
Health and well-being
It should be said that the integration of results of both tables (5-27) & (5-28) seen in table (5-
29) shows that both experts & the community agree on their negative feelings towards C. 8
& C.9, while the indicators analysis shows negativity regarding the three demonstrated
indicators.
It can be noticed that for C.12, the community has indicated negative performance, while the
experts have not. However, in this characteristic, 5 indicators show negative performance.
It can further be noticed that the DNP indicator has the most negative performance among
indicators, in relation to the four characteristics: C. 8, C.9, C. 11 & C.12
Table 5. 29: experts and community perceptions on Resilient Communities Characteristic
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2 Ex. Co.
Ma. Opt
Ma. Opt.
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
C.8
C.9
C.10
C.11
C.12
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
188
5.6 Intermediaries
As demonstrated in chapter 2, there are two main themes related to the role of
intermediaries in terms of governance and community, based on the literature studies. These
are:
• I-1: Intermediary role in Facilitating Knowledge
• I-2: Mediator Role in Making Social Change
5.6.1 I-1: Intermediaries' Role in Facilitating Knowledge Transfer
As acknowledged earlier, this theme has 4 relevant evaluation characteristics considered to
be the main characteristics for analysis here. Table (5-30) shows the themes and
characteristics relevant to the intermediaries’ roles. These characteristics are both
considered negative. However, this issue is considered to be limited for current local
adaptation planning, where the learning process and addressing of feedback among the
various stakeholders has been conceptualised in a more mechanical way, and thus lacks the
communication methods needed to address the necessary reactive management (Measham
et al 2011).
Table 5. 30: Intermediaries characteristics- governance
I-1: Intermediaries role in facilitating knowledge transfer
C.13 Information availability & interpretation
C.14 Communication between departments
C.15 Long-term programmes for community organisation capability and adaptive behaviour
C.16 Bottom- up feedback from the iterative process of adaptive social learning
C.17 Training and educational programme
• C.13: Information Availability & Interpretation
This characteristic is associated with the potential impact of BC as an intermediary on the
availability of information and data relating to CC adaptation and sustainability strategies,
and passing this information to the various other actors in the Media City network.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
189
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
As table (5-31) demonstrates, mandatory indicators promote positive performance,
compared with the optional indicators, which have a neutral impact on performance. The
social indicators seen in table (5-32) show neutral performance.
Table 5. 31: the analysis of C.13 of governance in BC
Theme
Ch.
BC Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
GO 01: Consultation Plan
GO 02: Consultation and engagement
GO 03: Design review
GO 04: Community management of facilities
I-1 C.13 +1 +1 0 0
Table 5. 32: the analysis of C.13 of governance in BC
Theme
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2
Mandatory
Optional PPC
Mandatory Optional CSW
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
I-1 C.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
For both mandatory indicators GO01 & GO02, it is acknowledged that there are methods
applied to engage the various actors in the consultation plan, including the community. It is
acknowledged that for making information easy to be understood and interpreted,
particularly with the inclusion of community, it is important that jargon is avoided during the
consultation exercise. It is also mentioned that as a result of the discussions about the
development they were involved in, the views and opinions of the community will be used in
the plans. Thus, there is positivity associated with this characteristic under this indicator.
However, there is no information about the data produced after the discussions, nor about
how accessible this information is for the various actors.
For the optional indicators GO03 & GO04, it is shown that there is no real support made
available for building and addressing an open and effective engagement and collaboration
process amongst the various engaged parties. Thus, accessibility of information and related
interpretation do not seem to be influenced by these two indicators.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
190
While for the Community indicators, for both groups, it is noticed that there is no influence
from these indicators to affect the process of information provision for CC among the various
actors. There is no effort from these indicators to include the community or other actors in
an engagement process that addresses the interpretation of information.
• Experts & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The source of the findings reported in this section is the professional actors’ questionnaire:
Question 16 Sections: All
The experts demonstrated that data availability and quality regarding climate change and
sustainability are considered as important aspects that are empowered through the role of
the BC, which is a positive matter. As (5-33) shows, this issue is considered as not needing
further focus. However, in general, the issues in this question were negatively indicated by
the experts as needing more focus, which is positive in BC as a result here. Under SPSS, the
coding for this question was: (No=0, Yes=1).
Table 5. 33: Experts Identification through the BC
Mean
Participants Occupation
Objectives of Adaptation
Resilience targets
Existing indicators
Data availability & quality
Accuracy Level
Short & Long term _
Planning
Architect 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00
Assessor 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.67
Urban Planner
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Developer/Manager
0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Professional Engineer
0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00
Water Engineer
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50
City Councillor
0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
It should be said that despite the important role of BC as a source of information, there is a
need for enhancement in association with the accessibility of data, in order to increase the
methods used and potential for information and knowledge transfer. The experts agreed
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
191
that there is a need for enhancement of BC and its focus on adaptation to climate change,
achieved through developing more indicators that influence the adaptation process of the
communities.
The experts’ responses here suggested that there may be differences in identifying the
particular fields that require more focus in BC. For instance, the Architects, Developers,
Engineers & City Councillors found that the ‘Resilience Strategies’ required more focus in the
application of BC as a potential intermediary party for advancing sustainability. At the same
time, there is a need for more focus on information, whether for ‘Data Availability & Quality’
or ‘Accuracy Level’, as indicated by Architects and Engineers, respectively. The ‘Integration
of both short- & long-term horizons into the planning’ also requires further focus as well, as
referred to by the Assessors, Water Engineers, & City Councillors.
Community: The participants indicated that they do not have any information on this issue,
which as demonstrated in the previous characteristic, can reflect the negativity associated
with making the community aware of the strategies applied here.
Summary – C.13:
Accordingly, the analysis results of this characteristic show that experts find this
characteristic to have positive and negative performance in association with the role of BC.
The community has a negative response towards the overall idea of applying this
characteristic in relation to the sustainability process.
The focus on the indicators of the governance process of BC has shown a positive result
regarding the first two indicators, and neutral performance for the other two optional
indicators. While for the community indicators, the indicators were neutral.
• C.14: Communication between Departments
This characteristic is associated with the potential of BC to address the communication
process among the various actors, through meetings and organised workshops.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
192
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
For this characteristic, it can be noticed in (5-34) that the indicators in the governance context
have been evaluated as having a neutral impact on performance. Similarly, the indicators of
the social context have neutral performance as well, as table (5-35)
Table 5. 34: analysis of C.14 of the Governance in BC
Theme
Ch.
BC Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
GO 01: Consultation Plan
GO 02: Consultation and engagement
GO 03: Design review
GO 04: Community management of facilities
I-1 C.14 0 0 0 0
Table 5. 35: analysis of C.14 of the Governance in BC
Theme
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2
Mandatory
Optional PPC
Mandatory Optional CSW
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
I-1 C.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
For the first two mandatory indicators GO01& GO02, it is acknowledged that it is good
practice to approach and to cooperate with community and individuals during the design
process of development, and then provide them with feedback about the suggestions
chosen. Nevertheless, there is no information within these indicators regarding the
intermediary communication processes and mechanisms in these workshops which can help
the communication process.
GO03 & GO04, as mentioned earlier, are indicators not currently influencing communication
and collaboration among the various actors to address sustainability and adaptation
knowledge production For GO03, the participants were only informed whether their opinions
are considered or not, while for GO04, the focus is on how the community could actively
manage facilities, through the developers' role.
For both groups of social indicators, the mandatory and optional indicators do not constitute
information that relates to this characteristic. There is no mention in any of the indicators on
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
193
the role of BC as an intermediary which can influence the communication processes of the
various actors, including the community.
• Expert & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The source of the findings reported in this section is the professional actors’ questionnaire:
Question 26 Sections: C, E
Question 30 Sections: A, B
The experts indicated that the role of BC is neutral when it comes to the aspects associated
with communication among the various actors. The experts identified that there was neutral
performance relating to the effects of BC on the ‘experts’ collaboration’, ‘experts & local
community connection’, &’ openness through the discussions. These results are associated
with question twenty-six, as table (5-36) illustrates.
However, at the same time, they attached negative responses regarding the influence of BC
on the issues of ‘organisation of meetings’ and ‘Feedback among the Local Communities &
Experts’. These findings are indicated in question thirty, related to the influence of BC on
these characteristics, as table (5-36) shows. The coding of this question was (Never =1,
Sometimes=2, Often=3, Quite Often=4 I do not know=88).
Table 5. 36: the role of BC in collaboration, training and learning across Media City
Options N Mean Influence on Performance
A BC_ Organising_ Meetings_ Experts 7 2.29
B BC_ Feedback_ Local Community_ Experts 8 1.88
C BC_ Training_ Experts 6 1.83
D BC _ Continuous_ Evaluation & Monitoring 6 1.83
E BC _ Monitoring _Actors Communication 7 2.14
F BC _ Educational_ Participation 7 2.14
Valid N (listwise) 6
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
194
Community: The participants indicated that they do not have information on this issue. This
is demonstrated in the RC characteristics section, where the communication between the
experts and community is negatively reported by the community, based on the negative
engagement procedure in place in Media City.
Summary – C.14:
The analysis results of this characteristic show that experts reported neutral and negative
responses towards this characteristic, related to the coverage of aspects that this
characteristic constitutes. The community associates a negative response with the overall
idea of applying this characteristic in relation to the communication process. A focus on the
indicators of the governance and the community contexts of BC, however, has shown neutral
performance for the mandatory and optional indicators, as seen above.
C.15: Training and Educational Programme
This characteristic is associated with the role of the indicators in addressing training and
learning principles and processes across the short and long term, amongst the various
intermediary actors.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators: The analysis of this characteristic across the four indicators of BC in the governance context
and social context are neutrally indicated across the indicators, as tables (5-37) and (5-38)
show below.
Table 5. 37: analysis of C.15 of the Governance in BC
Theme
Ch.
BC Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
GO 01: Consultation Plan
GO 02: Consultation and engagement
GO 03: Design review
GO 04: Community management of facilities
I-1: C.15 0 0 0 0
Table 5. 38 analysis of C.15 of the Governance in BC
Theme
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2
Mandatory
Optional PPC
Mandatory Optional CSW
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
I-1: C.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
195
For this characteristic, there is no information available regarding the ways that the
indicators of both contexts influence the experts and the local community regarding the
availability of programs on CC and sustainability. The availability of training and educational
aspects to maintain the role of BC is not influenced in either contexts here.
• Expert & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The source of the findings reported in this section is the actors’ questionnaire:
Questions 30 Section: C
The experts demonstrated that the intermediary role of BC can sometimes affect this
characteristic. This occurs in association with the issues attached to the training and
educational programmes of the various actors or the experts in the process regarding
sustainability and climate change impacts issues. There is a need to give this aspect more
attention. The role of BC as an intermediary tool that influences education of the various
experts through the collaboration and engagement process in meetings and workshops
designed by BC is in need of more focus, as demonstrated in the outcomes of question thirty.
Moreover, one of the experts identified that this role needs to be in place on a wider scale
or process, in order to increase focus on the role of BC in advancing sustainability and
adaptation to CC aspects within the network. This is particularly the case as the position of
BC in the governance process is strong. It can be noticed that having respondents see the
role of BC as a main source of learning and knowledge is still not acknowledged by the experts
as an issue.
Community: The participants indicated that they do not have information on this issue.
Summary – C.15:
Accordingly, the analysis results of this characteristic show that experts had negative
responses on the matter, in relation to BC indicators. The community had a negative
response to the overall idea of applying this characteristic as well. As a result, it is considered
that this characteristic needs additional focus in BC. This is because the role of BC as an
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
196
intermediary is essential regarding the empowerment of training and education programs
among the various participants within the governance process.
The focus on the indicators of the governance process of BC was seen to have neutral
performance across the four mandatory and optional indicators.
• C.16: Long Term Programmes for Community Organisation Capability and
Adaptive Behaviour
This characteristic is associated with the development of the community's adaptive
behaviour.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
The indicators are evaluated as having neutral performance, except GO 01 & GO02 of the
governance indicators, and FRA & DNP of the community indicators, which have shown
positive and negative performance respectively. The results are seen in tables (5-39) & (5-
40).
Table 5. 39: analysis of C.16 in the governance context in BC
Theme
Ch.
BC Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
GO 01: Consultation Plan
GO 02: Consultation and engagement
GO 03: Design review
GO 04: Community management of facilities
I-1: C.16 +1 +1 0 0
Table 5. 40: analysis of C.16 in the social context in BC
Theme
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2
Mandatory
Optional PPC
Mandatory
Optional CSW
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No
DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
I-1: C.16 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
For the governance indicators, it can be seen that the mandatory indicators have a positive
influence on this characteristic, compared with the other two optional indicators, in which
they show neutral performance. For GO01 & GO02, the advantages of the strategies of
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
197
integrating the community with the actors in the governance process are clear. For instance,
there are social developments designed to help the poor to reduce environmental health
stresses (such as clearing up waste, flooding, coping strategies deposits, improving sanitation
flows), which could have the double effect of minimising risks too (health impacts of flood
events) and building up organizational capacity/social networks (social capital assets) to
withstand shocks through cooperative efforts (Few 2003). The development and integration
of social programs as intermediaries in the risk’s reduction indicators is seen as potentially
important in increasing awareness levels. Another example is seen with fostering
community-based technologies for risk reduction, where interventions can aim to strengthen
the social and organisational capacities of the local community (Few 2003).
For the social context indicators, the mandatory indicators which should directly influence
this characteristic are lacking focus. For FRA, it is acknowledged that this indicator is
important for the protection of humans in the event of flooding. However, this indicator still
lacks the capacity to enable community social and organisational coping processes. Similarly,
for the DNP, there is a lack of focus on the long-term programs that include vital community
involvement and management. It is argued that there is a level of neglect seen relating to the
urgent need for community involvement in the identification of measures to monitor and
manage being identified as an essential part in the delivery of sustainable development and
environmental management objectives (Fraser et al 2006).
• Expert & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The source of the findings reported in this section is the professional actors’ questionnaire:
Questions: 12 Section: F
Questions: 30 Section: F
The experts indicate that there is negative performance seen in providing and accessing long
term information about CC. Mainly, the experts demonstrate that the integration of both
short term and long-term horizons in the planning process regarding adaptation strategies
through the role of BC is an issue that requires focus.
Generally, it is recognised that the influence of BC in promoting the monitoring reports at
various stages of the governance, and providing educational components for the various
actors, is inconsistent and requires clarity and detailed plans.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
198
Community:
The participants mentioned that there are no programs with an intermediary role identified
in either the short or long term for the development of any specific programs or processes
to develop their skills, or which might engage them in a learning process about their
environment.
The participants want to be engaged in an ongoing process where knowledge exchange and
learning are developed through meetings (formal and informal), administered by the local
council as an intermediary. Here, the role of BC can be important in filling gaps and lessening
the distance between governance and the community. This can allow them to act as a real
intermediary party but this is not the case, in the current situation.
Summary – C.16:
Accordingly, the analysis results of this characteristic show that experts reported negative
responses regarding this characteristic, in association with BC. Also, the community has
shown a similar negative response towards this characteristic. There is a need to increase
levels of awareness among the community, through involving them as partners in the
process, rather than dealing with them in a receptive way. The intermediaries’ role is
essential here, as demonstrated earlier, when it comes to lessening the gaps among the
actors, and specifically regarding the community participation process.
However, it has been seen that there is neutral performance for all indicators, except with
the mandatory indicators in both contexts as the table demonstrated above.
• C.17: Bottom- Up Feedback from Iterative Process of Adaptive Social Learning
This characteristic is associated with the development of coping capacity in a community's
adaptive behaviour.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
The indicators are evaluated as having neutral performance, except GO04 in the governance
context, which shows negative performance. The results are shown in table (5-41) & (5-42).
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
199
Table 5. 41:analysis of C.17 in the governance context in BC
Theme
Ch.
BC Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
GO 01: Consultation Plan
GO 02: Consultation and engagement
GO 03: Design review
GO 04: Community management of facilities
I-1:
C.17
0
0
0
-1
Table 5. 42: analysis of C.17 for the social context in BC
Theme
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2
Mandatory Optional PPC
Mandatory Optional CSW
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
I-1: C.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
For the governance context, the three indicators GO01 & GO02 & GO03 do not present a
clear focus on the issue of addressing feedback from the local community in order to
influence the social learning. This would allow the role of BC to be maintained when it comes
to promoting CC adaptation and sustainability strategies. In the case of GO04, this indicator
as part of the update process of the long-term management is considerably lacking when it
comes to including the communities' feedback as a crucial component of the management
process and dealing with development issues.
For the two groups of indicators under the social context, there is no information which
specifically focuses on this characteristic, and so these indicators are more likely to have
neutral performance.
• Expert & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The source of the findings reported in this section is the professional actors’ questionnaire:
Question 30 Sections: B
For this section, experts indicated that BC can sometimes show influence, for example when
address[ing] the feedback among local community and experts using easy translation
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
200
language and simple communication methods. However, in most cases, this issue is viewed
negatively with regards to BC focus.
Community:
The participants said that this issue is not addressed. Respondents mentioned feeling isolated
despite living, working and belonging to the same community, as information accessibility is
not in place, which is a clear issue. This comment relates to the need society has to access
various sources of information. This is important with regards to informing the local
community about happenings in their area ‘The only experience that I have is that where I
live, there was building of another block, and there was a form for complaint/vote , but the
online process to fill it out was ‘crazy’, and you have to go through 20 or 30 steps to complete
it . It was so complicated.’ (Employee/Occupant12)
Other participants confirm the negativity associated with addressing feedback about their
neighbourhoods and facilities in interactive engagement process. For instance, one
respondent said: ‘I came across an online community for the building that I’m living in, where
if they have complaints about the speed of the internet, noise, fire alarms, or regarding things
that you do not want, they can post about these kinds of issues. But it was not easy to find
these forms, and it was not available ‘on the surface’, you have to dig around to find it.’
(Student3).
Summary – C.17:
The analysis results of this characteristic show that experts reported negative feelings about
this characteristic, in association with BC. It is important to note that the community also
showed a negative response towards this characteristic as well. This issue of Bottom- up
feedback from the iterative process of adaptive social learning definitely requires
enhancement. It is demonstrated that intermediaries are not only providing immediate and
short-term intermediary services to the community, but are importantly seeking to offer
longer term for the development of capabilities as well. These collaborations can last for
many months, and often years (Howells 2006). However, this is not happening in Media City
as far as BC is concerned.
The BC indicators have shown neutral performance for all indicators except the GO04 in the
governance indicators context. There is no relation to this characteristic whatsoever as part
of the focus of these indicators.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
201
5.6.2 I-2: Mediating Roles Promoting Social Change
As acknowledged, for this theme there are 3 relevant evaluation characteristics which are
considered as the main characteristics for analysis here.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
These characteristics are related to the ideas of network creation, and making changes
through information update and involvement activation in the community. Table (5-43)
shows the themes and characteristics relevant to the mediators’ roles.
Table 5. 43: Mediator characteristics
I-2: Mediators roles making the social change
C.18 Create the Network and identify targets and strategies
C.19 Understanding the nature of community and enable their active involvement & participation
C.20 Information update and translate the information
• C.18: Create the Network and Identify Targets and Strategies
It is acknowledged that an important role of mediators is the identification of actors and their
roles, in order to create the network and to make everyone familiar with the role of
mediators. With regards to the inclusion of BC related roles in addressing this characteristic,
table (5-39) shows that there is positive performance associated with the BC indicators.
Table 5. 44: analysis of C.18 of Governance context in BC
Theme
Ch.
Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
GO 01: Consultation Plan
GO 02: Consultation and engagement
GO 03: Design review
GO 04: Community management of facilities
I-2
C.18
+1
+1
+1
+1
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
202
Table 5. 45: analysis of C.18 of Governance in BC
Theme
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2 Mandatory Optional
PPC Mandatory Optional
CSW
FRA ACC M FRM
DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
I-2 C.18 0 0 0 0 +1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
For both mandatory indicators GO01 & GO02, it is acknowledged that appropriate actors
various and the local community have been identified for consultation. A mediator’s
consultation plan is in place and the local authority has been consulted about the plan. So,
for these two indicators, the identification of actors and their influences on the decision
making is recognised.
It should be said that the developers are considered as the main parties with key
responsibility or the main role when it comes to reviewing major decisions, and decide on
management plans and processes, with the advice of experts.
For the optional indicators GO03 & GO04, it is demonstrated that for the former an
independent and inter-disciplinary panel has been used to undertake a design review of the
development proposal, while for the latter the role of the developer is seen to involve
support for community management as well. Therefore, during the governance process, BC
as a tool constitutes practical indicators considered important when it comes to enabling the
identification of actors and their roles. In this consultation process, the panel has the role of
mediator in discussions of information sharing among the various actors, and to make
changes for the communities regarding sustainability strategies and community
development. Accordingly, it seems that BC actors, developers and authority are all
considered as main mediators that influence the consultation process. It should be
mentioned that the influence of mediators on is happened through both human and non-
human actors, regarding the application and implementation of sustainability strategies.
• Experts & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The source of the findings reported in this section is the professional actor’s questionnaire:
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
203
Question 26 Sections: A
For the process of identifying the actors and their roles clearly through the BC mediator’s
role, the experts indicated that BC has a neutral role on the issue of identification of actors
and roles. As demonstrated in chapter two, this issue should be acknowledged under the
mediators’ roles in order to add a level of clarity and reduce the level of ambiguity
surrounding the whole process of sustainability and adaptation strategies application and
identification. For question twenty-six, the coding was (Strongly Disagree=1, Disagree=2,
Neither Agree or Disagree=3, Agree=4, Strongly Agree=5).
Table 5. 46: Identification of actors & their roles through the BC
Options N Mean Influence on Performance
A BC _Actors Identification_ Roles 13 3.31
B BC _Experts Collaboration 13 3.15
C BC_ Experts & Local Community Connection
13 3.00
D BC_ Information Availability_ Actors
13 3.15
E BC _ Openness_ Discussions 13 2.92
Valid N (listwise) 13
Community:
The participants indicated that they do not have information on this issue, but they
acknowledged the situation based on their experiences, where they would identify Salford
City Council as the main responsible intermediary for this characteristic. This means that
there is a negative view of BC as another intermediary here, as it has not been acknowledged
as a process by the community in the first place. However, Salford City Council seems to be
the most important intermediary party in their eyes. This issue requires enhancement, as it
is an important part of the intermediaries’ role to have the responsibility and the leadership
skill to lead the process towards transparent and less ambiguous engagement processes. It
is argued that intermediaries influence the development process towards more sustainable
targets, through linking actors and activities, skills and resources connected to these actors,
developed and enhanced ideas, as well as collaborations and technologies (Kivimaa et al 2014
&Kivimaa et al 2018).
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
204
Summary – C.18:
Accordingly, the analysis results of this characteristic show that experts find this
characteristic to have neutral performance, while the community has negative response
towards the overall idea of applying this characteristic in relation to the sustainability
process.
The focus of the BC indicators of the governance process present a positive response, while
the community indicators present neutral performance, except DNP as seen above.
• C.19: Understanding the Nature of Community and Enabling their Active
Involvement & Participation
This characteristic is associated with understanding the community's nature and the
empowered position of them being involved and participating in the adaptation and
sustainability plans and strategies.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
For this characteristic, the governance indicators seem to hold neutral performance, as table
(5-46) demonstrates. The social indicators seen in table (5-47) show that the majority of the
indicators have neutral performance, except for FRA in Group 1 & DNP in group2, which show
negative and positive performances respectively.
Table 5. 47: analysis of C.19 for Governance context in BC
Theme
Ch.
Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
GO 01: Consultation Plan
GO 02: Consultation and engagement
GO 03: Design review
GO 04: Community management of facilities
I-2
C.19
0
0
0
-1
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
205
Table 5. 48: analysis of C.19 for social context in BC
Theme
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2 Mandatory Optional
PPC Mandatory Optional
CSW
FRA ACC M FRM
DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
I-2 C.19 -1 0 0 0 +1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The governance indicators still do not influence community involvement when it comes to
the development of sustainability strategies and processes throughout the development
period, and after the occupancy stage. When it comes to making changes in the
neighbourhood through community involvement when BC is applied, it is important that the
BC actors are involved with the community and have special programs and connections.
As the table shows, the majority of social indicators have neutral performance. For group 1,
the mandatory indicator FRA mentions the assessment of flooding, wherein the knowledge
of possible flood risk is gathered from the local community. However, there is not enough
information included regarding engaging the community in a broader governance,
particularly through understanding the community itself and how they can act during these
events. It is argued that there is a need to understand the engagement of the community
and various actors and agencies in relation to the interventions that need to be addressed to
strengthen the resilience of the poor against the impacts of environmental hazards (Few
2003). This applies to the BC context as well, which requires more focus. Primarily, the link
between community participation and risks assessment and management is still weak and
has serious deficits, according to the literature (Few 2003). There is also no mention on this
characteristic in the other optional indicators.
For group 2's DNP, it is demonstrated that the community is consulted regarding local needs
and requirements desired as part of the proposed development, which can allow for these
elements to be prioritised. In this indicator, it is demonstrated that understanding the
demographic profile of the community regarding gender, age, employment, education are
all considered to understand the community structure and nature, and to understand the key
influences impacting the development. Therefore, it seems that this indicator is positive in
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
206
relation to this characteristic. For the N0, there is no information that influences this
characteristic. Similarly, for the optional indicators, no information exists.
• Experts & Community perceptions Experts:
The source of the findings reported in this section is the professional actors’ questionnaire:
Question 34 Sections: B
The experts demonstrated that BC requires focus on this issue and must address the ‘ability
of the local community to access information, particularly at times of risk’. However, they
have reported that the level of focus here is needed to a low extent. It should be said that
this issue is in need of improvement. The majority of experts have stated that there is no
knowledge indicated or existing on this issue.
Community: The participants commented on this characteristic, saying that the role of the
developers is considered negative when it comes to making the community feel like a vital
part of the physical neighbourhood and one that is connected to the process of development
and to access any information relating to this. One participant commented: ‘PEEL developers’
people are really practical people, and it’s difficult to access them.’ (Employee 4)
The focus group participants were critical of the way that developers are managing the
project and controlling its different aspects. They have created no space for the local
community to take part in any matter, and everything is enacted without their approval. One
participant mentioned that the local community should have a voice and a clear role for
delivering their needs, saying: ‘I think it is important for the community to have a say to try
to make sure the developers are being responsible and think about the people living here and
not just the workers.’ (Occupant 2)
The role of the developers was not the only negative here, as the role of the council as an
intermediary was negatively perceived as well when it came to making the community feel
connected to the development. Therefore, there is a need to find new ways to address
community participation and empowerment through the developers themselves.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
207
Summary – C.19:
Accordingly, the analysis results of this characteristic show that the experts reported negative
responses regarding this characteristic, in association with BC, and it was indicated that no
level of knowledge was required as well. The community presents a negative response
towards the various actors in the processes happening in Media City as well. There must be
a greater focus on understanding the community's nature, and enabling their active
engagement process during their sustainability efforts and community development.
The focus on the indicators of the governance level presents positive performance for the
mandatory indicators, and neutral performance for the optional ones. While, for the
community indicators, the majority of the indicators, except the mandatory indicators, as
seen above.
• C.20: Empower Community Knowledge Awareness and Social Learning
This characteristic is associated with empowering the community to be acknowledged and
to learn about CC and sustainability.
• Theoretical Performance of BC Indicators:
This characteristic is neutrally presented through the BC indicators in both contexts, except
for the GO01 & DNP indicators, where there was negative performance, as table (5-49)
shows.
Table 5. 49: analysis of C.18 for the Governance context in BC
Theme
Ch.
Governance Indicators
Mandatory Optional
GO 01: Consultation Plan
GO 02: Consultation and engagement
GO 03: Design review
GO 04: Community management of facilities
I-2
C.20
0
0
0
-1
Table 5. 50: analysis of C.18 for the social context in BC
Theme
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2
Mandatory Optional PPC
Mandatory Optional CSW
FRA ACC M FRM
DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
I-2 C.20 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
208
It is acknowledged that GO01, GO02 and GO03 are considered neutral, as they do not have
any information which influences the role of BC indicators which could boost the community
learning process throughout their community and development process, and thus address
adaptation to CC. It is mentioned that there is an alteration in the design process based on
the community engagement process, where communities have an opinion in the selection of
the preferred design option. Nevertheless, these changes do not constitute learning.
With GO04, as part of the update process regarding long term management, there is a clear
lack of inclusion for communities when it comes to making them feel like a vital part of the
management process, and they do not learn about the development issues. It is
acknowledged that the role of BC as mediators allowing for learning and empowerment in
communities is important, particularly in relation to sustainable design and technologies with
which users may be unfamiliar.
Finally, the social indicators mostly show neutral performance. For group 1, the mandatory
and optional indicators do not offer information that relates to this characteristic.
For group 2, DNP is the only mandatory indicator that has information on the consultation of
community needs and priorities and their desirability. However, this indicator is clearly
lacking a focus on the development and application of strategies related to community social
learning. There is no focus on anticipatory learning in the face of CC and future risks, where
people could be learning about the future dangers before the negative impacts happen
(Tschakert and Dietrich 2010). This situation is in line with the current scarcity of climate
learning tools that build resilience into people’s livelihoods, institutions, and ecosystems,
which is particularly evident at community levels (Tschakert and Dietrich 2010).
• Expert & Community Perceptions: Experts:
The source of the findings reported in this section is the professional actors’ questionnaire:
Question 30 Sections: F
Question 34 Sections: A&B
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
209
As acknowledged earlier, a focus on community itself is needed in BC, through engagement
in the planning, consultation, and post occupancy stages. As table (5-36) shows with question
thirty, the role of BC in addressing knowledge awareness and learning aspects through the
education and participatory approach is a negative issue. Also, as the other question
demonstrates, this is a reasonably high priority area for enhancement, as it relates the level
of community participation with the knowledge presented about the process's various
possible risks. For example, in the case of farmers’ participation in the UK ‘Making Space for
Water’ flood policy, a lack of systemic knowledge was hypothesized to be an obstacle in
farmers’ willingness to participate (Tompkins and Eakin 2012). In particular, there are
challenges associated with the provision of sufficiently well-rounded information about
climate change and the high uncertainty which accompanies it (Tompkins and Eakin 2012).
Community: The participants attaches a negative response to this characteristic. They link
this with a sense of isolation as a negative issue that might impede their social interactions
as well. This is because there are new barriers to making a connection, which is certainly seen
as a negative when trying to establish collaborative, interactive communities. They also
referred to the lack of participation as a problem when it comes to accessing or finding
information.
Summary – C.20:
Accordingly, the analysis results of this characteristic show that experts reported negative
responses regarding this characteristic, in association with BC. The community presents a
negative response to the overall idea of this characteristic as well. There is a need to increase
the levels of awareness throughout the community through making them partners in the
process, rather than dealing with them in a receptive way. The intermediaries’ role is
essential here, as demonstrated earlier, when it comes to lessening the gaps among the
actors and for the community participation process.
The BC indicators have shown neutral performance for all cases, with the exception of the
DNP indicator, which presents negative results.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
210
5.7 Discussion:
5.7.1 Intermediary Characteristics & BC indicators:
The analysis above, as summarised in table (5-51), demonstrates that the characteristic C. 13
is showing positive performance across the mandatory indicators, while C.14 & C.15 show
neutral performance across the four indicators.
Table 5. 51: Intermediary Characteristics & relations to BC indicators of the governance context
Ch.
Governance Indicators
GO 01
GO 02
GO 03
GO 04
p Nu Ne p Nu Ne p Nu Ne p Nu Ne
C.13
C.14
C.15
C.16
C.17
The analysis, as summarised in table (5-52) demonstrates that C.16 & C.17 show neutral
performance across all indicators, except the two identified indicators of FRA & DNP, in
relation to characteristic C.16.
Table 5. 52: Intermediary Characteristics & relations to BC indicators of the social context
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2 Mandatory Optional
PPC Mandatory Optional
CSW
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
C.13
C.14
C.15
C.16
C.17
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
211
5.7.2 Intermediary Characteristics & Actor Perceptions:
The analysis shows that the experts have coded negative responses for five characteristics,
with positive responses for C.13 only, as table (5-53) shows. For the community, they have
reported negative responses for all 5 characteristics as well, mentioning that these issues are
not well delivered, whether through the role of BC or through the other parties.
Thus, in general, there was a level of agreement in the negative feedback reported regarding
the performance of these characteristics in the Media City development process.
Table 5. 53: expert and community perceptions on Intermediary characteristics at governance level
The role of BC as Intermediary party in the Governance
Experts Local Communities Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative
C.13: Information availability & interpretation
C.14: Communication between departments
C.15: Training and educational programme
C.16: Long Term Programmes for community organisation capability and adaptive behaviour
C.17: Bottom- up feedback from iterative process of adaptive social learning
It should be said that from the integration of results above, as demonstrated in table (5-54),
it is seen that both experts and the community have both presented negative responses
towards all the characteristics, while the indicators analysis shows negativity for GO04. This
issue needs to be investigated to make sure of the way this issue relates to the role of BC,
because as can be seen here, none of the governance indicators in BC as intermediaries have
a negative role in relation to these characteristics, except with GO04. However, the experts
reported levels of negativity in relation to the BC, for certain aspects of the governance in
relation to the characteristics here. For the social indicators, as table (5-55) shows, the
indicators DNP & FRA have negative performance in association with C.6.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
212
Table 5. 54: the integration of findings in BC indicators & actor perceptions of Intermediary characteristics
The role of BC as Intermediary party in the Governance
Governance Indicators Actors
GO01 GO02 GO03 GO04 Experts Community
C.13: Data collection & Interpretation
C.14: Communication between departments
C.15: Training and educational programme
C.16: Long Term Programmes for community organisation capability and adaptive behaviour
C.17: Bottom- up feedback from iterative process of adaptive social learning
Table 5. 55: the integration of findings in BC indicators and actors' perceptions on Intermediary characteristics
The role of BC as
Intermediary party in the
social context
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2 Ex. Co.
Mandatory Optional PPC
Mandatory Optional CSW
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
C.13
C.14
C.15
C.16
C.17
5.7.3 Mediators’ Characteristics & Actor perceptions regarding Community:
The analysis above, as summarised in table (5-56), demonstrates that characteristic C.18 has
positive performance across the four governance indicators. GO04 has shown negative
performance in association with characteristics C.19 & C.20, compared with the other three
indicators, which show neutral performance.
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
213
Table 5. 56: Mediators’ characteristics & relations to BC indicators of the governance context
The role of BC as mediators in the Governance
Governance Indicators
GO 01
GO 02
GO 03
GO 04
p Nu Ne p Nu Ne p Nu Ne p Nu Ne
C.18: Create the Network and identify targets and strategies
C.19: Understanding the nature of community and enabling their active involvement & participation
C.20: Empower Community Knowledge Awareness and social Learning
When it comes to the social indicators’ analysis, the DNP indicator is positively indicated in
association with the two characteristics C.18 & C.19, as (5-57) demonstrates. However, the
same indicator has shown negative performance in relation to C.20. It is also seen that for
C.19, the FRA has shown negative performance. Therefore, it is noticed here that the optional
indicators all had a neutral position in association to these characteristics, while there was a
level of negativity indicated in the mandatory indicators.
Table 5. 57: Mediators’ characteristics & relations to BC indicators of the social context
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2
Mandatory Optional PPC
Mandatory Optional CSW
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
C.18 0 0 0 0 +1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C.19 -1 0 0 0 +1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C.20 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
214
5.7.4 Mediator Characteristics & Actor perceptions:
The analysis shows that the experts and the community have coded negative performance
for the four characteristics here, as table (5-58) shows.
Table 5. 58: expert and community perceptions on mediators Characteristics at the community level
The role of BC as mediators in Community
Experts Local Communities Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative
C.18: Create the Network and identify targets and strategies
C.19: Understanding the nature of community and enable their active involvement & participation
C.20: Empower Community Knowledge Awareness and social Learning
It should be said that from the integration of results in the three tables (5-56) & (5-57) & (5-
58), table (5-59) shows that both the experts and the community have shown a level of
negativity towards the role of BC as potential mediators here in Media City. The GO04
indicator shows negativity at the governance context, regarding the role of mediators
through the characteristics of understanding the nature of the community and enabling their
active involvement, as well as participation and empowering community knowledge
awareness and social learning. The mandatory indicators have also shown negativity towards
the mentioned two characteristics, as table (5-60) shows.
Table 5. 59: integration of findings in BC governance indicators & actors’ perceptions of Mediators characteristics
Mediators Characteristics
Governance Indicators Actors
GO01 GO02 GO03 GO04 Experts Community
C.18: Create the Network and identify targets and strategies
C.19: Understanding the nature of community and enable their active involvement & participation
C.20: Empower Community Knowledge Awareness and social Learning
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
215
Table 5. 60: integration of findings in BC social indicators & actor perceptions of mediators’ characteristics
Ch.
Community/Social Indicators
Group 1 Group 2 Ex. Co.
Ma. Opt
Ma. Opt.
FRA ACC M FRM DNP No DSFA Us GI LP1 LV ID PR LP2
C.18
C.19
C.20
5.8 Sub-Conclusion:
This chapter builds on the previous chapters and presents an analysis of the results from
phases 1 & 2 of this thesis. These findings resulted from the application of an integrated
analysis of both the selected BREEAM Communities indicators and the actors’ perceptions of
Media City in relation to the themes and characteristics of the three theoretical approaches:
Adaptive Governance, Resilient Communities & Intermediaries. The analysis was presented
for each of these three theoretical approaches in the three sections of this chapter.
In summary it was found that the community presented negative responses in relation to
both the Adaptive Governance characteristics and the Intermediaries characteristics analysis
in both the governance and the community levels; while they were found to show even
stronger negative responses in relation to the Resilient Communities characteristics. It can
therefore be suggested that the community participants demonstrated a low level of
engagement, awareness, empowerment, adaptive behavior, and learning throughout the
governance processes, as employed within the Media City development; and in the context
of the application of BREEAM Communities as an intermediary.
While, on the whole, the expert respondents were found to have also reported negative
performance in relation to two of the Resilient Communities characteristics. Further, the
experts have agreed with the community and associated negative performance with regards
the Intermediaries characteristics that are associated with the inclusion of BREEAM
Communities in the development process. However, they attached less negative responses
to the Adaptive Governance characteristics than the community did; while at the same time,
Chapter 5: Results: Adaptive Governance & Resilience Community & Intermediaries analysis and BREEAM Communities
216
they presented more negativity than the community regarding the Resilient Communities
characteristics.
With regards to the analysis undertaken of the BREEAM communities’ governance indicators,
negative performance was found in relation to the Adaptive Governance characteristics;
while neutral performance was found with regards the Intermediaries characteristics. For
those social indicators, similarly to the governance level: it was seen that the they were found
to have negative performance in relation to the Resilient Communities characteristics.
Finally, regarding the role of BREEAM Communities indicators in enabling intermediary
characteristics to be delivered, a neutral performance was found.
Following this analysis, those BREEAM Communities indicators that were found to have a
negative performance in association with the three theoretical approaches Adaptive
Governance, Resilient Communities and Intermediaries, in the governance and social
contexts, were identified. Having established this scope for the next phase of this work, it is
then argued that it is important to investigate in practice, through further interviews, the
experts’ perceptions, of the potential for enhancement of those BREEAM Communities
indicators that have been identified as requiring enhancement. The next chapter presents a
discussion of this analysis, and proposes enhancements that can be made in particular to
BREEAM Communities Indicators and actors in their roles as intermediaries and mediators.
This final phase of the research, will thus explore the extent to which the proposed
enhancement of BREEAM Communities indicators might also enhance the performance
associated with Adaptive Governance and Resilient communities’ characteristics at both
governance and community levels is discussed, and thus promote the resulting adaptive
capacity of communities.
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
217
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key
Governance and Community Levels in BREEAM Communities
6.1 Introduction:
This chapter discusses the implications of BREEAM Communities’ role as an intermediary
party as well as the potential for enhancement of this role to address and respond to
challenges identified both at governance (top-down) and community (bottom-up) levels in
relation to key indicators. This chapter discusses the relationship between the
intermediaries’ characteristics of Adaptive Governance and Resilient Communities that were
identified in Chapter 5 as hindering adaptation performance. In order to discuss the
implications of BREEAM Communities’ potential intermediary role to enhance these
identified characteristics through key indicators, three main points are explored here:
• Experts’ perceptions about the negative performance of these characteristics
• The potential role of BREEAM Communities as an intermediary to address negative
adaptive capacity performance in relation to the two levels of governance and
community
• Identification of the indicators that should be further enhanced
These points will be discussed in this chapter for each of the characteristics previously
identified as hindering performance. Firstly, the perceptions of the experts are presented,
exploring the relationship with negative community feedback. Then the role of the
intermediaries’ characteristics that are represented in BREEAM Communities is discussed to
ascertain the extent to which the enhancement of these characteristics may address the
negative performance of each of the Adaptive Governance and Resilient Communities
characteristics. It should be noted that only those characteristics identified as negative have
been presented to the experts, not the intermediaries’ characteristics, nor any characteristics
that were evaluated as having a neutral or positive impact on adaptation.
During the interviews with experts that were reported in Chapter 5, the researcher identified
the characteristics of the intermediaries that the experts collectively considered required
enhancement in relation to the Adaptive Governance and Resilient Communities
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
218
characteristics. Following the interviews and at this stage of the research it was found that
there is agreement that the enhancement of the intermediaries’ characteristics is linked to
and could lead to the enhancement of the performance of both the Adaptive Governance
and Resilient Communities characteristics. Finally, the relationship of this to the key BREEAM
Communities indicators that perform negatively and their related enhancement is also
considered.
6.2 The Role of BREEAM Communities as an Intermediary
By their nature, intermediaries have an important role in promoting better outcomes in
relation to sustainability goals, community capacity and community goals. Intermediaries
also have a significant role as main mediators that contribute to the development and
advancement of sustainability targets and strategies, whether through considering the main
needs, strategy development, or the application of the technologies for amenities and
facilities (Kivimaa et al 2018). Furthermore, Bush et al.’s (2017) study demonstrated the real
potential of the intermediaries to positively influence empowerment strategies for
communities by supporting the reframing process of the institutional framework to enable
empowerment actions.
Bird and Barnes (2014) indicate that an important part of addressing collective action of
communities through intermediaries has been associated with the assessment and
evaluation of various matters (whether technological or social) as well as providing the
consultation and support needed during the process. In addition, this should happen in
parallel with creating the circumstances through which education, the learning process and
the dissemination of knowledge and awareness can be achieved. Moreover, Bush et al.’s
(2017) study argues that intermediaries can play a role in supporting and enabling the
development processes, while Singh and Butler (2015) demonstrate that they can also work
towards addressing the enhancement of community health care and social sectors.
When successful, intermediaries can add significant leadership capabilities and
organisational skill sets to achieve community goals, for instance, in the contexts of
improving community well-being and health goals (Singh and Butler, 2015). As Bush et al.
(2017) demonstrate, intermediary organisations have an important role in helping to shape
stronger action by connecting across and beyond existing activity in ways that put
communities first, as seen in the case of community local energy intermediaries. Therefore,
intermediaries play an essential role in addressing these aspects throughout the whole
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
219
development process, addressing certain negative outcomes from the beginning of the initial
engagement and not only setting the plans and advancing them in practice but also
enhancing the ability to sustain them in the long term.
In this chapter, the role of BREEAM Communities’ indicators as intermediary actors that have
the potential to positively influence the performance of the negative characteristics in both
governance and community has been discussed. Table 6.1 presents the Adaptive
Governance, Resilient Communities and intermediaries’ characteristics that have been
identified as hindering adaptation performance, along with their association with negatively-
evaluated BREEAM Communities’ indicators.
Table 6. 1 Characteristics & key BC indicators with the negative performance that are identified in Chapter 5
AG Characteristics BC indicators
C.3: Focus/Incorporation of information and understanding the impacts of CC & Potential Risks
GO04
C.4: Shared/Participatory Ways of Knowledge GO03, GO04
C.5: Include the ways that consider the physical performance of water facilities during the consultation process
GO01, GO02 GO03, GO04
C.6: Monitoring and Continuous Evaluation of Development Facilities GO01, GO02 GO03
IA Characteristics of governance level BC indicators
C.14: Information availability & interpretation/governance level -
C.15: Communication between departments /governance level -
C.16: Training and educational programme /governance level -
AG Characteristics BC indicators
C.8: Community feeling of attachment & social engagement DNP, DSFA, Us
C.9: Increase the Level of Learning and awareness knowledge DNP, ACC
C.12: Enhanced delivery of human Health and well-being DNP, DSFA, Us PR, LP1
IA Characteristics of community level BC indicators
C.17: Understanding the nature of community and enable their active involvement & participation /community level
FRA
C.18: Empower Community Knowledge Awareness and social Learning/community level
DNP
C.19: Long Term Programmes for community organisation capability and adaptive behaviour/community level
FRA & DNP
C.20: Bottom- up feedback from iterative process of adaptive social learning/community level
-
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
220
6.2.1 BC Governance Indicators & AG Characteristics
Regarding the application of the AG characteristics analysis in Chapter 5, the AG and the I
characteristics of the negative performance are presented in Table 6.2 for discussion in this
chapter. The table also presents the relationship of the relevant BC indicators to these
characteristics.
Table 6. 2 the AG & I characteristics of negative performance and associated governance indicators of BC
BC Indicator
Mandatory Optional
AG characteristics GO01 GO02 GO03 GO04
C.3 Focus/Incorporation of information and
understanding the impacts of CC and potential
risks
X
C.4 Shared/Participatory ways of knowledge X X
C.5 Include the ways that consider the physical
performance of water facilities during the
consultation process
X X X X
C.6 Monitoring and continuous evaluation of
development facilities X X X
Intermediaries’ Characteristics
C.13 Information availability and interpretation
C.14 Communication between departments
C.15 Training and educational programme
C.16 Long-term programmes for community
organisation capability and adaptive behaviour
C.17 Bottom-up feedback from iterative process of
adaptive social learning
X
C.18 Create the Network and identify the targets and
strategies
C.19 Understanding the nature of community and
enable their active involvement & participation
X
C.20 Empower community knowledge awareness and
social learning
X
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
221
6.2.1.1 C.3: Focus/Incorporation of Information and Understanding the Impacts of
CC & Potential Risks
With the level of negativity that is indicated in the findings in association with the need to
focus on CC impacts and potential risks during the consultation plans, as well as the
engagement and management aspects of the governance process, it was found that CC is not
currently a priority or a concern among the various actors in the built environment. As
Maguire and Cartwright (2008) argue, this is unlikely to make CC among the key concerns of
a community and in many cases, they may not even be aware of it.
Any consultations or engagements need to incorporate CC as a central issue and ensure not
only that there is an adequate focus on it but also that this occurs within a wider participation
process with a breadth of relevant actors. The Media City experts in the interview process
confirmed that these issues are linked, as they suggested that the intermediary role of key
BC indicators could be to enable the promotion of necessary communications in the
consultation process. According to Interviewee 2:
“BC needs to focus on connecting the community with the top-down governance
actors. It is important to undertake and enhance early engagement through [the] BC
role, particularly regarding the process of connecting them and getting feedback is
really important too.”
Thus, the Media City experts have suggested that if the role of BC indicators was enhanced
during the consultation plans, this could have a role in positively influencing appropriate
focus on CC, as well as sustainability more broadly. In addition, the experts identified that in
terms of the way it is currently promoted through key BC indicators, the role of the developer
is not sufficient and this could be one of the main impediments to the vital incorporation of
actors and community in the consultation process, whether during the planning stage or after
the occupancy stage.
It should be said that in the collaboration process of actors and to address the targets for the
management process for communities, collaborative platforms may, ideally, become de
facto a permanent part of the governance structure, which was the case for BC here as used
in Media City. Nevertheless, despite the importance of the role of formal institutions here,
this does not imply that such programmes have to or should be entirely formalised in terms
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
222
of collaboration, social networks, procedural rules, roles and the distribution of decision-
making power, as this formalisation may destroy the very characteristics of the open
programmes embedded in dynamic networks that render them so valuable in adaptive
governance (Pahl-Wostl et al 2007). This is because the planning of effective adaptation
processes requires the provision of the information by or to all potentially concerned and
affected actors that could vitally influence the decision-making process and planning
processes (Roseland 2012). This demands better focus on making CC adaptation plans a vital
issue, as the need to integrate CC measures into all areas of policymaking has become a
clearer issue now (Urwin and Jordan 2008). Furthermore, flexibility and change must be
provided through learning from discussion and collaboration processes in the dynamic actor
networks related to BC, in order to continually increase the level of awareness and change
information available through the governance procedures (Pahl-Wostl et al 2007).
Increasing the engagement with CC through consultation, engagement and management
processes through communication among actors from the top-down and bottom-up levels
related to key BC indicators needs more focus in terms of the interpretation of information
and communication in an easy and clearly understood way. However, in relation to this issue,
the experts of Media City suggested that this would not be a concern if the consultations
were better implemented and therefore became a familiar process to the various actors in
relation to the BC indicators. For instance, Interviewee 1 mentioned that:
“The communication between the community and experts is not an issue in terms of
the technical language and interpretation of ideas. However, this process is still
dependent on the experts’ personalities and their way of accepting the ideas.”
So, with better focus and efforts, this issue of communication and engagement with CC can
be overcome. However, the issue is not only associated with the role of BC indicators as
intermediaries but also with the role of other policymakers as both intermediaries and
mediators. Stevenson and Petrescu (2016) argue that policymakers need to invest more time,
effort and finance into learning how to co-produce new knowledge and new
neighbourhoods, by working together with local actors. Therefore, this situation needs to be
supported in the development implication and enhancement plans, as well as within BC
indicators, in order to lessen the knowledge gaps between the various actors regarding
adaptation planning and processes for CC.
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
223
Crucially, the focus on CC also requires continuous efforts in the process of community
engagement and management after the occupancy stage in building developments, in order
to ensure that the community is both informed and responsible. This requires enabling the
community to have a vital intermediary role in communicating their ideas and providing
feedback. It should be noted that even this may be considered a challenge in some projects,
including Media City, due to difficulties in identifying and accessing the community. This is
especially true for new build projects as well as for those like Media City that include a
changeable and transitory community. Despite this, the experts confirmed in the interviews
that the local community needs to be aware that their opinions are valuable at any time and
by making this possible, positive progress can be made in relation to CC and sustainable
development implication and enhancement.
Accordingly, the consultation and engagement process should be enhanced by using the
relevant BC associated indicators (GO01 and GO02) and through a better focus on CC and
actors’ wider engagement process within the network. In addition, increasing the role of the
BC assessors as intermediary actors in these processes may be beneficial. Meanwhile, for the
process of addressing feedback and management, which are related to the optional
indicators (GO03 and GO04); making these indicators mandatory as intermediaries would
support this enhancement. Likewise, as intermediary actors, containing clearer focus and the
necessity for effective community engagement processes after the occupancy stage can
bring better outcomes for the community, as well as for climate change adaptation and
sustainability implication processes. Therefore, the enhancement of this characteristic is
directly associated with the enhancement of the intermediary role of relevant BC indicators
and their embedded actors, particularly regarding the characteristics C.13 and C.14.
6.2.1.2 C.4: Shared/Participatory Ways of Knowledge-(GO03 & GO04)
The evaluation of the Media City project presented in Chapter 5 demonstrates that this
characteristic is negatively indicated and requires enhancement. There is a need to conduct
a greater number of meetings or workshops for the various actors, including the community.
It is acknowledged that conducting meetings and workshops is considered essential for
increasing learning among stakeholders such as local communities, as these workshops act
in a non-human intermediary role, which can provide a space for actors to articulate their
preferences about governance and management plans and thus progress towards addressing
adaptation targets for CC (Tompkins et al 2008). For example, in the context of Media City,
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
224
the role of other major stakeholders such as the BBC and ITV media organisations could be
more mobilised, as could other intermediaries, in working towards lessening the gaps
between local communities and the governance authorities or responsible parties. Indeed, it
could be argued that the media more widely has a potential role in this scenario. Specifically
in Media City, these physically local, national media outlets might help in advancing the
adaptation policies by shedding light on CC and embedding this issue within the local
community; this would enable pressure on the local governance structures, as
intermediaries, to address more active roles and leadership in terms of both policy and
adaptation, where the openness and interactive process among these actors is vital (Tanner
et al., 2009). Achieving this level of openness can be promoted by creating an atmosphere in
the engagement process where participants are encouraged to expose misperceptions of
various thoughts and behaviours, for example, regarding the issues of water demand and
usage or energy saving (Littlewood et al 2017). It is further suggested that when community
development processes are implemented through practical and achievable participatory
projects (e.g., improving a neighbourhood or service), in which community groups consider
themselves as the main actors through participatory actions (Berkes and Ross, 2013); such
dynamic intermediary processes can build cohesion and a sense of community while
achieving tangible outcomes (Berkes and Ross 2013).
During the experts’ final interview phase, Interviewee 1 reported that: “Having BC has meant
that the architects and the engineers do not have the sole word in the development, but the
tool actors also have an influence through their interactions with those professionals. In
particular, BC for building has done a lot to break things down, by enforcing the idea in the
design team that every decision may have a big impact, whether as an architect, engineer or
ecologist.” This suggests that the indicators in the BC tool can and do play this intermediary
role in relation to the sharing of knowledge, but a necessary enhancement may be to push
this beyond experts and professionals and to engage with stakeholders more widely.
Moreover, enhancement is needed in relation to enabling the process of knowledge-sharing,
especially with regard to addressing adaptation actions; this demands that channels of
communication are opened between experts and decision-makers in the network, as well as
that the participating professionals are able to grasp, understand and make use of the
knowledge from each other during and after these meetings or sessions (Cash et al 2003).
Notably, this might demand the use of novel ways of learning and for the presentation of
information as new intermediaries; Interviewee 1 from Media City mentioned that the
current BC embedded consultation plan was not at all effective:
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
225
“The consultation process was very poor. It only comprised a few pictures and a
simple explanation of the project, while there was no feedback later on. So, these
consultations are not effective at all. Not through the role of BC assessors or actors.”
This confirms that even where wider consultation does occur at present as a result of BC’s
role as an intermediary, it is ineffective. However, enhancement in the aims, expectations,
timing and standards of consultation would be conceivable.
This coincides with Oliver and Pearl’s (2018) research, which demonstrated that when the BC
was applied in Masthusen in Sweden, the community consultation aspect once again did not
yield the results that it could have done. In the end, the feedback from the community
consultations and focus groups had minimal, if any, impact on the resulting design; in
addition, the consultation plan was described as occurring ‘late’ and happening after the
design process was finished. It is important to ensure communication among the various
actors by disseminating the information and communication strategies through the various
BC indicators as intermediaries. In this regard, one of this paper’s experts confirmed the
associated challenges and suggested using technological means to identify the intermediary
role of BC indicators by saying:
“BC got a ‘stationary’ position from the government; however, it’s still optional, but
it is a long, slow slog to get there. So, with the governance actors, communication is
not easy, but the work regarding community involvement requires a huge amount of
effort. To make the community think seriously about their environment, and
therefore become more engaged, this requires the publication of information and
even perhaps making a TV reality show about it.”
Moreover, this also requires a focus on education factors during these community sessions,
particularly through the BC indicators. As Interviewee 1 suggests:
“I think that communication and education are the two most important things that
are needed in BC.”
However, it should be said that when BC was included in Media City, there was a wider
collaboration of experts than might otherwise have been anticipated for this scale of project,
but this did not include the local community. Again, this finding concurs with Oliver and
Pearl’s (2018) study regarding the investigation of BC’s role in collaboration and community
participation in the Masthusen project in Sweden. Their study concluded that there was a
gap between the aspirations of the BC tool and its indicators, which aim for genuine
community involvement that can lead to substantial alterations in the development process,
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
226
as well as building awareness and knowledge among the communities. At the same time, as
an intermediary, the BC tool was found to require extensive collaboration between the client
group, the city, and the internal and external consultants, as well as to maintain a strong
dialogue among them all in maintaining the network over time regarding matters of
sustainability assessment and environmental development (ibid).
Therefore, in order for the enhancements summarised above to be achieved in both the
GO03 and GO04 indicators in the BC tool, they need to become mandatory. This would make
feedback provision about the development an achievable and core matter, as well as creating
and embedding an iterative learning process. The role of BC indicators as intermediaries is,
therefore, essential here and the three characteristics of C.14, C.15 and C.16 must be
implemented in order to enhance their role and achieve better outcomes for the whole
process.
6.2.1.3 C.5: Include the Ways that Consider the Physical Performance of Facilities
during the Consultation Process
The experts mainly indicated that the top-down governance role played by Salford City
Council was positive in regard to the provision of sustainable aspects such as water and
energy facilities in Media City. However, learning about the sustainability of the performance
of facilities in the neighbourhood among the various communities is also important, as this
makes individuals and communities aware and able to have the skills, understanding and
resilient adaptive behaviour to comprehend the risks and impacts. In relation to this, as
mentioned earlier, support for learning or education is the most necessary enhancement
here; where community involvement and coordination with municipal officials are all present
in the development process (Mathews et al 2014). Facilitating the education process
demands experts’ understanding of this issue and their cooperation in its enhancement.
Therefore, while the role of BC as the main mediators that enable the learning process and
changing of strategies to promote sustainability and adaptation is important, this also
requires enhancement, particularly for the communities involved.
Interviewee 1 gave the following feedback on the process in the Media City project:
“I think it’s a missed opportunity, the consultation process, or the community
consultation side of things. There was a consideration of sustainability strategies in
the planning and the construction process, but the application of these sustainability
strategies through a wide collaboration process of actors did not happen. Mainly, it
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
227
should happen by enabling the community to lead their own way into the
development through their engagement, but this did not happen.”
It should be said that the role of BC in promoting education cannot be done on its own but
requires organisational change in policy and planning in local governance, which facilitates
greater community involvement in the planning and decision-making processes (Cuthill
2001). A top-down governance focus is needed, perhaps through the local council ensuring
that sustainability learning is part of the community consultation and management
processes. By identifying actions that the community can grasp and become involved in,
learning can be promoted, thus enabling the development of practical development by
achieving the target of making sustainable development and adaptation possible. In relation
to this, the experts confirmed that the intermediary role of the council should indeed be to
encourage this issue, as Interviewee 3 commented:
“I think maybe the local communities will not know anything about adaptation to CC,
because there is nothing required from them. If they were being told to do something
or to know something about adaptation, that would make it different.”
However, the developers also have a role to play in this process, which the experts in this
case identified was not the case in Media City, where the developers did not pay attention
to disseminating knowledge or preparing the community for sustainability issues and
potential CC impacts. Developers could promote learning about the physical built
environment and sustainability, by including the new tenants in the management of both the
operational phase and the process of the place, which may, in turn, encourage an iterative
learning cycle about the physical facilities in the neighbourhood.
Therefore, the role of BC actors, again as intermediaries and mediators, is important here
and requires further encouragement and support. This relates to all of the relevant
characteristics and requires specific focus by the council, experts and developers to address
it. The role of the GO04 BC indicator is of particular importance in this scenario, thus in order
to influence the community management process effectively, a simple enhancement to BC
indicators that would promote their role as mediators would be to make this indicator
mandatory. Regarding this last point, one of the experts, Interviewee 2, said that:
“…the management of communities’ facilities indicator and process, if applied, is
implemented through a process that does not appear to be dynamic enough to
address the necessary shared ways of learning. However, in order to increase the
social learning that is needed for adaptive capacity and for more effective
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
228
management processes, there should be a steady relationship between the stable
and changing parts of the governance process.”
Enabling this would necessitate integrating the local views of the Media City community into
the development process, as local views are clearly pivotal in order to not only address the
sustainable management process (Tompkins et al 2008) but also to guarantee the flexibility
and change that must be provided through learning to build adaptive behaviour in the various
participants (Pahl-Wostl et al 2007).
6.2.1.4 C.6: Monitoring and Continuous Evaluation of Development Facilities-
(GO01, GO02, GO03)
With regard to the evaluation and monitoring of facilities and neighbourhoods, the experts
in this research identified that this characteristic was not influenced by the role of BC but in
Media City, this characteristic is related to the role of the developers.
Nevertheless, the experts mentioned that the monitoring and management of building
performance is a part of BREEAM tools at the building scale. They also identified that the
management company that the developer selects is the one that is responsible for the
monitoring and evaluation process, as a specific intermediary maintaining the network.
However, the experts also identified that BC actors still have the potential to enhance their
role, by ensuring that relevant materials are published and available for the communities
with regard to the management and performance of the facilities and associated ways to
effectively act in an adaptive way. However, it would still be the developer’s role to enable
enhancement for this issue. For instance, one expert, Interviewee 3, said that:
“…for the developers, I think they should play a greater role in influencing
sustainability issues, so I think they should focus on making the information accessible
to the people and managers, rather than focusing on the economic and business
aspects. As a result, they should then make the changes in the management teams,
which will positively affect the process of sustainability.”
The issue of focusing on updating information is important for community awareness about
the sustainability of their neighbourhood. Adger et al (2005) mentioned that what appears
successful in the short-term may turn out to be less successful in the longer-term. The
community needs to be informed and responsible at the same time in relation to the
decisions that relate to their behaviour in, around and for facilities. In order for this to be
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
229
effective, collaboration is required between the main actors in the network. The implication
of this suggests that partnership between the developers and the council is put in place, as
one expert, Interviewee 3, commented:
“Good developers should perhaps initiate a partnership with Salford Council with the
intention of enabling the translation of issues with the local people in both the short
and longer-term. It would be even better if both contractors and developers could do
this, so people can see that both of them are making these efforts.”
Therefore, communication is essential with the community about this characteristic and this
requires the community to find representatives to work with on the development of
management and monitoring plans and processes in order to ensure that this is not solely
the responsibility of developers and councils. In this regard, it seems that BC does not have
a positive influence on this issue.
However, it is also important to make information and materials available to communities
about the performance of facilities and what makes the place sustainable, through the
provision of accessible and meaningful reports around sustainable outcomes. As Interviewee
2 suggested:
“In terms of enhancement, this could be done [by] reporting on the development,
using elements such as monthly reports about the strategies that have been
implemented, with statistics to show the local communities. This could also be done
by sending emails, linking to websites, or using an app (it could be a Media City App)
to tell people, for example, that the water quality was measured this week and it is
better this year than last year. However, we do not have that communication and
that’s the failing really.”
It is therefore acknowledged here that the role of BC (as both intermediaries and mediators)
in establishing programmes for community management and monitoring and maintaining
these is important and requires enhancement.
6.2.2 BC Communities and RC characteristics:
With regard to the application of the analysis of RC characteristics presented in Chapter 5,
the RC and relevant I characteristics that have been identified as hindering adaptation
performance are presented in Table 6.3 for discussion in this chapter.
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
230
This table also represents the relationship between the BC indicators and the negative
performance of the RC characteristics, while for the AI approach, it can be seen that the main
negative indicators here were DNP and FRA.
Table 6. 3 the RC & relevant AI characteristics evaluated as negative community indicators of BC
AG characteristics
BC Indicator
Mandatory Optional
DNP FRA DSFA ACC Us PR LP1
C.8 Community feeling of attachment and social engagement
X X
X
C.9 Increase the level of learning and awareness knowledge
X X
C.12 Enhanced delivery of human health and well-being X
X X X X
I Characteristics C.13 Information availability and
interpretation
C.14 Communication between departments C.15 Training and educational programme C.16 Long Term Programmes for community
organisation capability and adaptive behaviour
X X
C.17 Bottom-up feedback from iterative process of adaptive social learning
C.18 Create the Network and identify the targets and strategies
C.19 Understanding the nature of community and enable their active involvement and participation
X
C.20 Empower community knowledge awareness and social learning
X
6.2.2.1 C.8: Community Feeling of Attachment & Social Engagement (DNP, DSFA &
Us)
The community had reported the negativity associated with this characteristic and this was
confirmed by the Media City experts. In particular, there was agreement in relation to the
importance of including the local community in social events and meetings, aside from the
public and entertainment events that happen in their areas. In addition, they confirmed that
entertainment and social events do take place in Media City.
With regard to the main engagement issue, it was suggested that there was a need for
specific advertisements and publication for any such meetings, according to Interviewee 2:
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
231
“There is still a need to advertise engagement initiatives and meetings that are
organised after the occupancy stage, particularly in projects where the development
is still ongoing. What actually happens is that the people give their opinions and the
developer ignores it.”
This respondent also went on to suggest that, to their knowledge, any consultation that has
happened to date has not resulted in any positive impact.
It is acknowledged that Media City is a regeneration project and that this large-scale project
is still ongoing. However, the experts confirmed that there continues to be no community
involvement in the activities that relate to the development process; in some part, this may
be due to concerns that such a process could cause a delay. Furthermore, it was suggested
that this process is not currently a part of the developers’ agenda. There is evidently a need
to widen the engagement process and evidence its value, in particular to those actors that
are key decision-makers, including the developers. Littlewood et al (2017) argue that one
way to increase individual engagement is via focused, community-wide engagement. In both
of these regards, the role of BC indicators can be important and effective. The three experts
interviewed at this stage of the research agreed on the need for BC to promote the
engagement process, potentially by focusing on the importance of forming links between
individuals in the community themselves. They suggested that this engagement could be
widened through linkages with other community actors in the wider network, including the
wider Salford community and even the Manchester community more broadly.
Focusing on the community needs and their priorities from the beginning is essential here,
but it is clear that this issue was not considered by Media City in its consultation process
through BC as the main mediators that focus on this issue. It is suggested (and confirmed by
the experts) that this is probably one of the main reasons that the community reported that
the area is not suitable for families and that it is primarily a business area. Thus, if the cultural
dimensions of CC are ignored, it is likely that both the adaptation and mitigation responses
will fail to be effective because they simply do not connect with what matters to individuals
and communities (Adger et al 2013).
The experts suggested some relevant and potentially important enhancements in relation to
this issue, some of which relate to the need for community partnership, as suggested by
Interviewee 1:
“It’s important to look for community partners, a community who have been there and know
about the place, not in connection with the developers, but the community themselves, to
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
232
discuss the plans and the development phases, and [its] effects on their lives and needs. So,
having these community groups is important, but it is also key to have other groups that
belong to the community, but operate at a professional level.”
Another suggestion from Interviewee 2 is related to the need for a greater focus on learning
and improving sources of knowledge awareness about the development and community,
through the incorporation of the actors, including the BC tool, in this:
“…about the importance of the Media City website for [promoting] knowledge-building and
awareness for the community about their development and community matters. Salford City
Council should embrace opportunities for the whole of Salford to be sustainable.
It is important that the strategies about the sustainability of the place and the choice of living
here are well communicated and advertised and the message about living in a sustainable
world should be central to this strategy.”
If this characteristic is to be effectively enhanced, the experts suggest that the interaction
and active engagement between the various communities of Media City (which could largely
be described as a privileged mixed community development) must be embedded in the
agenda of BC indicators. This requires having community programmes that are decided at
the beginning of the consultation plan as powerful mediators, as such programmes and their
outputs can play a role in emboldening the local council to support and enable the
empowerment of community involvement.
Finally, with regard to the negativity that was reported by the community about their
engagement in the management process of facilities and with the ongoing development
more broadly, the experts agreed that there was a need for further consideration of the
feedback of the community in order to make them feel involved in their neighbourhood.
Stevenson (2009) contends that it is important to address the systematic feedback to inform
future decision-making at the level of policy, design and delivery.
It is suggested that informing the residents about the development outcomes is key, in order
to ensure that they understand that they belong to this physically sustainable place. For
example, Interviewee 2 commented on this issue:
“Certainly, the buildings are constructed with sustainable strategies. BC definitely
holds credit for that, however, regarding the operations of building and facilities,
there are changes happening with the management companies. Where good
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
233
management exists, there will be a rapid response to complaints or if there are
problems and they will also tell people about the performance of the building, what
energy system we are using, water consumption and the site’s carbon emissions
…and that’s not happening. I agree with the community that there is no information
for residents about the strategies of these buildings for the residents, there is
nothing.”
Accordingly, there is a need to consider the understanding of community needs and priorities
regarding the social interaction and engagement processes and the physical understanding
of facilities. This is rooted within the three associated indicators (DSFA, DNP & Us) of BC and
in order to address adaptation effectively and to have better roles of BC actors as real
intermediaries and mediators, the four characteristics of C.17, C.18, C.19 & C.20, should be
considered as part of the sustainable development process.
6.2.2.2 C.9: Increase the level of Learning, Knowledge and Awareness
Regarding this characteristic, both experts and the community indicated negative
performance with regard to the increased levels of learning, knowledge and awareness in
the community about CC and adaptation strategies in their neighbourhood. The Media City
experts agreed with the community’s feedback and highlighted the need to have better
focus, which has enhancement implications.
In relation to this, the need to make the information available and accessible to the
community is key; indeed, as residents in a developed country, they should have
opportunities to be made aware of CC and the potential impact that it may have on their
lives. According to Interviewee 2:
“Focusing on developing community knowledge and awareness about their place is
important; however, unemployment and taxes are the priorities for the council to
focus on. While these things are important, Salford City Council should be doing more
when it comes to making the community more aware of sustainability and
encouraging the whole development to be sustainable, for a better future. However,
there is a problem regarding knowledge and awareness and when it comes to
individuals, some people like the developers do not want to listen because they are
busy doing other things.”
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
234
For CC adaptation, people like to be well-informed and they watch or listen to local sources
of information; although in this context, there are challenges associated with the provision
of sufficient and quality information about climate change and the high uncertainty that
accompanies this subject (Tompkins and Eakin 2012). As a result, the provision of information
about CC impacts and communicating them is an issue that could be addressed beneficially
through the BC intermediary role and its indicators; while being essential for the large
community of Media City, this has been found not to be enabled at the moment. There was
agreement among the experts consulted in this phase of the research regarding the lack of
information available to the communities and the associated demands that the strategies
that are applied through the planning process in Media City. In particular, information
regarding water, energy and flood should be communicated and applied during the
operational stages to address the adaptive management targets. It has been demonstrated
elsewhere that continued dedication to on-the-ground, experimental research, while
mechanisms that facilitate deliberate learning on how to implement adaptive management
would be helpful and relevant in several natural resource sectors, such as habitat
conservation, fisheries, forestry and marine protected area management (Moser, 2010).
Enhancement to BC indicators in this area could therefore enable BC-enabled projects to
provide just such grounds for learning.
Therefore, more efforts are needed to increase levels of community awareness and develop
learning programmes that enable this issue to be resolved. Two of the experts consulted in
this phase of this research agreed with this issue, Interviewees 1 and 2 respectively said:
“…there is no capacity of BC regarding learning issues about development, risks and
potential for adaptation and there are no actions, processes or rules that can
influence this issue. There is nothing in BC. However, there is a need to make people
able to take part by flipping the assessment of extreme events and risks, as we can
see a lot of them nowadays. It’s more likely now than at any time in the past. It’s
more likely one hundred or two hundred year’s events.”
“I agree about the lack of information concerning the impact of this development on
the climate. The enhancement can be enacted by drawing more attention to the
sustainable factors and ensuring that the whole development, PEEL, management
and others should follow sustainable practices. So, more focus is needed on the BC
operational process. I think BC operations should be followed, not only for the design
and development.”
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
235
Thus, there is a need to have better strategies concerning the social context that are applied
through the role of BC indicators and not only regarding the physical strategies of Media City.
The community also needs to be aware of these physical strategies, especially that the more
active technological systems need to be provided in housing; that more maintenance and
care is required; and that appropriate maintenance also requires awareness of what is
required in terms of adequate feedback (Stevenson and Baborska-Narozny, 2014). What is
particularly important, however, is to decide when and how much detailed monitoring is
actually necessary, based on an initial diagnosis of whether or not the facility is meeting
performance standards (Stevenson 2009).
However, it should be said that there is the potential to have a better focus on education and
learning in regard to CC and sustainability in Media City, especially as BC is applied in the
relationship with relevant wider stakeholders in the broader project network. For example,
the existence of Salford University and its training programmes, as well as the work
opportunities that are provided by the BBC and other media and advertising companies in
the site. These organisations could play a clear and effective role in the transfer of
information and also in providing information, which could be enabled through an
enhancement to BC to seek stakeholder collaboration during the occupation phases of a
project, thus lessening the gaps identified here.
Meanwhile, there are challenges in relation to the communication of strategies in Media City
regarding the ‘changeability’ of the community in this big mixed development project, as
discussed previously. This is further challenged by the experts’ description of most of the
community in Media City as a ‘transient community’; a community which remains for a short
or temporary period in the development and thus might not feel obliged to commit to these
engagement programmes, even if they did exist. Therefore, thinking and communication
about transferring the actual strategies into adaptive behaviours and actions is needed, but
the translation of the strategies into behaviour is challenging in this context.
One of the experts explained that an initial step toward this could be by having physical posts
as new tools for illustration, comprising elements such as an explanation of the strategies
and sustainability; for the locals, this would be like a ‘museum’ to show what is special about
Media City. This idea could be important for communicating the ‘historical issues’ of the place
with the community. Interviewee 3 explained this issue:
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
236
“I think when telling people about the impact of sustainable strategies, that will make
people ‘proud’ & ‘knowledgeable’ to see why this approach is right for everyone.
However, we do not know, I do not know! But we should know.”
For example, this strategy was applied in the sustainable development at Hafen City,
Hamburg, where this served to inform both occupants and visitors to the site in an attractive
and engaging manner (www.hafencity.com 2019).
Moreover, it is also acknowledged that even if the local community knows that this is a
sustainable place, they still may not know how to use it in a sustainable way. This issue
requires monitoring and feedback to guarantee that the learning process regarding the
implication of strategies has happened in practice. The ‘learning by doing’ approach is
encouraged to some extent in Media City, in particular regarding waste recycling, to
encourage the community to act in a sustainable way. One of the experts consulted here
explained that if this learning issue were to be enabled in Media City, by including local
community engagement and feedback during the ongoing construction phases, then benefits
would be achieved for both the community and the experts.
Therefore, the inclusion of communities’ feedback before, during and after the development,
together with the provision of the available information, may enable the processes necessary
for the community to increase their learning, knowledge and awareness around both
sustainability and climate change adaptation. In order to achieve this, it will be necessary to
undertake enhancement to the ACC indicator in BC to better influence practice, in particular
by transforming this into a mandatory indicator. Furthermore, throughout the relevant BC
indicators, the learning process about CC, adaptation and sustainability requires more
explicit focus for community actors and would benefit from the addition of a new and
additional mandatory indicator as a new intermediary that focuses explicitly on influencing
the learning process and increased awareness levels in the community. Thus, the role of BC
as both intermediary and mediator party can again become important in influencing this
characteristic regarding the focus on awareness, knowledge and learning positively.
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
237
6.2.2.3 C.12: Enhanced Delivery of Human Health and Well-being (PR, Us, DNP, LP1
& DSFA)
With regard to the negativity that was found to be attached to some points related to this
characteristic; during this final interview phase, the experts generally reported that they
considered that there were significant points associated both with the positive aspects of
community well-being, as well as agreement with some of the negative aspects identified by
the community.
The experts here agreed on the importance of the role of BC and the other actors, particularly
Salford Council, to influence how issues including orientation, open spaces, plants and
sunlight availability have been considered in Media City and how these and other factors
combine to deliver a good natural environment that can have positive impacts on occupants
and visitor health. Furthermore, they mentioned as Media City continues to develop through
further stages, there is a need for more parks and open spaces to increase the greenery in
the area.
Regarding the negative community feedback regarding social infrastructure, in particular that
associated with access to car parking areas, schools, nurseries, clinics and the quality of
apartments; the experts disagreed with the community feedback about the need for more
car parks, while they agreed on the need to have nurseries, schools and clinics for the Media
City community.
In relation to the parking areas, the experts confirmed that this is one of the main design
points that promotes sustainable living in this development, in order to reduce car use and
associated carbon emissions in the environment. The community needs to know that
addressing sustainable performance is an important target of the development and this not
only relates to the physical features embedded in the building design but also to the quality
of interaction that is offered to the occupants or users (Stevenson and Baborska-Narozny
2014). Therefore, a greater level of understanding of these physical aspects is needed and
this suggests a need to develop collective learning to improve home use understanding
(Littlewood et al 2017), as well as broader neighbourhood and urban design strategies. This
is not a simple problem, but communities need to be able to trust the participative process
if they are to respond positively to the aspects that relate to the various changes in their
future and their community (Dodman and Mitlin 2013).
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
238
Meanwhile, with regard to the availability of schools and nurseries in Media City, the experts
agreed on the need for them, however, they identified that having schools in the
neighbouring community may be sufficient. Interviewee 1 commented on this issue, saying:
“I think it’s important to place the social infrastructure as an important part of the
development. I think in Media City, it’s like Manchester City Council - lots of housing,
lots of apartments, lots of people living there, but somehow the social infrastructure
is still not there.”
On this issue, Interviewee 1 further added that if enhancement is needed for these services,
BC indicators should consider the importance of having such services in projects and the
other surrounding communities. This is important in order to create equity and satisfaction
for the various communities and the responsibility of engagement with communities about
requirements, as well as communicating this issue upwards to the top-down governance
structures. This again reinforces the idea of the BC tool and its indicators as having enabled
intermediary roles, however, in this case, it might be argued that the delivery and funding
for such infrastructure would largely need to be supported by the local government.
On this issue, Interviewee 2 added that it is necessary to consider connections among the
communities that are close to Media City, suggesting that:
“It is a part of BC to address the link between the community and other districts or
communities, by having the gym across the Lowry, this will extend the community to
other parts and enable it to become one big and connected community.”
Regarding the availability or provision of health centers and clinics, there is a need to have
access to such services, including pharmacies and wider health services. Both interviewees
identified that the lack of such services, together with the prevalence of apartment buildings,
could be important points that contributed to the negative feedback from the community
about well-being matters. There is thus a need for enhancement in this regard. One of the
experts mentioned that this could be related to the idea that this project was developed for
the young professionals of the BBC and other similar jobs, for whom such services may be
perceived as less vital or urgent. Interviewee 2 reinforced this perception:
“I think when they [designed the project] they put up apartment buildings to satisfy
the young professionals who work in the media industry so that the BBC people who
came from London were able to work here. However, it’s not developing into a proper
community… there is a need for a family base, so I think the apartments should
perhaps be more appropriate for children. Currently, I do not think the Media City
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
239
apartments are suitable for children and there are certainly no schools here for young
students.”
Essentially, this demands that the breadth of existing local communities and the evolution of
communities should be seen as equal partners in the development process, in which the
adaptive capacity building process emphasises the need to build on what exists throughout
the process and not just at the phase of outcome, while this must consider both the
community’s nature and its needs (Nyong et al 2007).
Therefore, regarding this characteristic, there are points that relate to the role of BC
indicators in the planning process about the understanding of the nature of communities and
their needs and demands. The influence of this understanding and engagement should be
felt throughout the wider indicators, particularly the DNP, which can particularly be seen to
demand enhancement. Meanwhile, for the other physical aspects, communication is key to
enable understanding in the community as to why these strategies have been implemented
in this way and not in another. Thus, the role of BC indicators is again found to be important
in addressing these challenges, by making ‘education’ an embedded issue.
6.3 Sub - Conclusion:
This chapter has discussed the implications and potential for enhancement of the key BC
indicators in association with the governance and social and wellbeing indicators in Media
City. Chapter 6 has shown that in terms of addressing the challenges that are associated with
the governance level and to promote the adaptive governance characteristics, the role of BC
intermediaries’ characteristics requires enhancement and this should be applied for each
characteristic in relation to the relevant BC indicators. It is concluded that enhancing the role
of BC as an intermediary role through the characteristics:
- C.13: Information availability and interpretation;
- C.14: Communication between departments;
- C.15: Training and educational programme;
- C:16: Long-term programmes for community organisation capability and adaptive
behaviour
is important to overcome the negativity that is associated with the AG characteristics of:
- C.3: Focus/Incorporation of information and understanding the impacts of CC and
potential risks;
Chapter 6: Implications and Potential for Enhancement of key Governance and Community
Levels in BREEAM Communities
240
- C.4: Shared/Participatory ways of knowledge;
- C.5: Include the ways that consider the physical performance of facilities during the
consultation process
in order to have better performance towards CC adaptation in the social context. This
suggests not only transforming GO03 & GO04 into mandatory BC indicators but also indicates
the need to better focus on the BC indicators GO01 & GO02, regarding the intermediaries’
characteristics in relation to the process of inclusion.
For the resilient community characteristics, it is concluded that the role of BC as a mediator
through the main three characteristics of:
- C.18: Create the Network and identify the targets and strategies;
- C.19: Understanding the nature of community and enable their active involvement
and participation;
- C.20: Empower community knowledge awareness and social learning
are important to address the negativity that is associated with the resilient community
characteristics of:
- C.8: Community feeling of attachment and social engagement;
- C.9: Increase the level of learning and awareness knowledge;
- C.12: Enhanced delivery of human health and well-being.
However, there is a need to better focus on the role of BC as an intermediary that maintains
the work towards sustainability and adaptation by focusing on the intermediaries’
characteristics that relate to the provision of information and to the bottom-up feedback
from the iterative processes of adaptive social learning. For the relevant indicators, it is
therefore concluded that a greater level of enhancement is needed in DNP, that ACC should
be made a mandatory indicator and that new indicators are added into BC that focus
increasing community awareness, knowledge and social learning.
241
Chapter 7: Conclusions
This thesis aimed to investigate the role of a Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment tool
(BREEAM Communities) in enabling adaptation in the social context; through its role as an
intermediary actor in neighbourhood development projects. This specific study examined the
role of key indicators in BREEAM Communities that integrate the characteristics of
adaptation in the (top-down) and (bottom-up), and the intermediation processes in the social
context. The purpose was to focus on the potential and challenges that the BREEAM
communities has as a case study neighbourhood sustainability assessment tool regarding the
social adaptation process to Climate Change in the context and scale of neighbourhood
development projects, and in relation to specific indicators. The focus on the social
adaptation process to Climate Change throughout the governance process when
sustainability tools are involved is limited in the literature. The literature review in chapter 2
identified a gap in the research relating to the need to investigate adaptation to Climate
Change in the social context, both top-down and bottom up and especially in their potential
role as intermediary, throughout the process of the application of NSAs. This highlights the
importance of this study in contributing to the understanding of the advantages that these
tools proffer for communities. In particular this study identifies the negative aspects that
could be improved upon to promote enhanced performance of key indicators in NSAs in
terms of communities’ adaptive capacity in relation to climate change, consequential to
neighbourhood development processes.
The study used the BREEAM Communities assessment tool as an NSA case study, that
represents one of the most important and popular neighbourhood scale sustainability
assessment tools in use globally. This tool was found to comprise specific existing indicators,
both mandatory and optional, associated with the social adaptation process of both the
governance and communities’ levels, which became the focus of this study. The study of
these BREEAM Communities indicators constitutes the application of this tool in practice, in
the MediaCity case study in Salford, as a significant example of these indicators’ sustainability
performance in neighbourhood development. In this chapter, the importance of the BREEAM
Communities role in influencing the process of building social adaptation for communities in
both the governance and the community levels, through some of their specific sustainability
indicators, and the role of BREEAM Communities as an intermediary actor in both levels is
discussed.
242
Results from the study identified the importance of key BREEAM Communities indicators in
the social adaptation process both in theory and practice. The performance of those
indicators selected, according to the extracted characteristics of the theoretical approaches
of Adaptive Governance, Resilience Community and Intermediaries were evaluated. The
expert and community perceptions of the performance of MediaCity in relation to these
characteristics and in correlation with the BREEAM Communities indicators roles were also
collected and analysed. In addition to the presentation and analysis of the selected
theoretical indicators findings and the actors’ perceptions findings; these were integrated to
reveal the most negatively performing evaluation characteristics and as a result those specific
Indicators that require enhancement were identified. The findings were informative to the
proposition of enhancement strategies that can be promoted through the role of selected
BREEAM Communities indicators as intermediary tools. Results were collected regarding the
final stage, whether the enhancement of BREEAM Communities indicators as intermediary
actors have potential in enhancing negative characteristics at both levels. The enhancement
of selected BC indicators as the main applied strategies in the governance and communities’
levels was proposed as well.
The outcomes of the thesis point to where key BREEAM Communities indicators can
influence the adaptation in the social context, and their real potentials in this context.
Despite this, there remains substantial further work required to further understand this
research topic. However, this work provides an effective overview of the potentials that key
indicators in NSA tools have for promoting and enhancing the development process and the
delivery of adaptive capacity embedded in its outcomes. In this chapter, the main findings of
this research are discussed. In addition, it also summarizes the strengths and limitations of
the work presented in this thesis. Finally, in this chapter responses to the research questions
and presents recommendations for further work.
7.1 Contribution of the research
The five main objectives identified for this research, were previously stated as:
1. To establish a theoretical framework for the evaluation of adaptation in the social
context through identifying the main theoretical approaches and their associated
characteristics.
243
2. To identify the importance of Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment tools as the
tools that hold potential for adaptation in the social context in both theory and
practice.
3. To evaluate the theoretical capacity of the Case Study NSA (BREEAM Communities)
in enabling adaptation through analysis of relevant constituent indicators in relation
to the three identified theoretical approaches.
4. To investigate the impact of the Case study NSA (BREEAM Communities) in
application to the project case study (Media City) to promote the adaptation;
through the analysis of the actors’ perceptions in relation to the three identified
theoretical approaches.
5. To evaluate the implication of key findings that can potentially be applied in
enhancing the role of BREEAM Communities in the governance and community
levels, and through proposing strategic implications for the enhancement potential.
These will now be considered in turn.
7.1.1 Objective - 1: Integrated Approaches to promote Social Adaptation in the
Sustainability Context of Neighbourhoods
This research objective ‘To establish a theoretical framework for the evaluation of adaptation
in the social context through identifying the main theoretical approaches and their associated
characteristics’, has been addressed through establishing an integrated approach for an
evaluation framework to be adopted for the investigation of social adaptation in
neighbourhood developments in the sustainability context. It is argued that Climate Change
adaptation and sustainability should be investigated as two integrated concepts, and not
separated ones, for this purpose. Further, in this context, it was discussed that exploring the
potentials of the Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment Tools as representative tools for
sustainability is key here, to address adaptation, despite the lack of research regarding the
social dimension in sustainability in relation to these tools. It was argued that in order to
build adaptation in the social context, governance (top down) and community (bottom up)
and as intermediaries (between these two) are considered as the two main levels for the
process of addressing adaptation at the social context.
244
Importantly, it was established that in order to promote adaptation to Climate Change;
resilience and adaptive capacity should be considered as the two main interconnected
theoretical approaches that would be required. As, both resilience and adaptive capacity aim
to address the ability of any context to prepare for impacts and potential risks, such as those
posed by Climate Change through characteristics or strategies that are planned and applied.
Regarding the focus on building and promoting an evaluation of the social context, it’s
proposed that an integrated theoretical approach is needed. Regarding the need to focus on
the three levels of governance, community and intermediaries, and with the significance of
the adaptive capacity and resilience as two evaluated methods, three theoretical approaches
were identified to provide a framework for the investigation of social adaptation, namely:
i. Adaptive Governance
ii. Resilient Community
iii. Intermediaries
For these three approaches, sustainability is considered as the main context that combines
them, and that provides grounding for all three. In terms of the utilisation of these three
theoretical approaches, the study suggested a framework of themes and characteristics that
needs to be promoted, in order to achieve adaptation targets. For their investigation, 9 main
themes and 20 characteristics were identified from the literature.
7.1.2 Objective – 2: BREEAM Communities as an important tool with the potential
to promote social adaptation in theory and practice
To identify the importance of Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment tools as the tools that
hold potential for adaptation in the social context in both theory and practice.
To address this objective, its acknowledged that the application of neighbourhood
sustainability assessment tools to regeneration and / or development processes would
provide an appropriate scale and process for the investigation to be undertaken here. In
particular due to its inherent integration of both physical strategies and various actors’
engagement in the development process. It was clearly established through literature review
that NSA tools have significant impacts upon built environment development processes in
which they are applied in terms of ensuring the application of the sustainability strategies.
245
However, it was argued that the main operational contents, the ‘indicators’, which are
described as simple measures that are applied to achieve sustainability in the economic,
social and environmental aspects of the development process, are still not fully evaluated
regarding the focus on Climate Change adaptation process. In particular in terms of the
evaluation of the outcomes of development.
The study selected BREEAM Communities as the case study assessment tool as it can be
considered as a tool that has the greatest current potential towards promoting adaptation,
with respect to its mandatory Indicators, applicability, actors’ engagement & Community
inclusion. All of which are considered positive, in comparison with the two alterative NSA
tools considered for application in this research, namely, LEED-ND & CASBEE-UD. These
three tools having been shortlisted as they are reportedly the three most popular tools
currently applied internationally in the built environment development process. Initial
further evaluation of the BREEAM Communities too in theory established that it has focus
on both the governance and community levels through the inclusion of both relevant
optional and mandatory indicators, which were subsequently selected as the particular
indicators to evaluate in this study.
It was further argued that a practical case study approach would provide an essential
context for the other proposed methods in order to investigate the potential role of the
selected BREEAM Communities indicators to influence, in practice, the governance and
community levels, as main sustainability applied strategies, and as potential intermediaries,
through the role of the BREEAM Communities actors. The case study ‘Media City’ in Salford
UK was selected to be an “exemplar” case study due to the importance of this project to
the community development and sustainability of Salford and the UK, and having been
rated as ‘Excellent’ through the BREEAM Communities tool certification process. As argued
by Gustafsson (2017), when a single case study is used, as is this case in this research, it is
important to deliver a focus on the roles of institutions or organisations, in order to support
the delivery of sustainability and effective adaptation.
The research proposed that the combined analysis of the selected BREEAM Communities
indicators in theory and practice, which encompasses both theoretical indicators analysis
and practical case study investigation of the same indicators, would provide an efficient
specific context for the investigation of the social adaptation process regarding the
previously identified three main theoretical approaches embedded in the evaluation
framework of Adaptive Governance, Resilient Communities & Intermediary Approach.
246
7.1.3 Objective – 3: Application the Integrated Approach for the Analysis of BC to
address adaptation to CC in theory
To evaluate the theoretical capacity of the Case Study NSA (BREEAM Communities) in
enabling adaptation through analysis of relevant constituent indicators in relation to the
three identified theoretical approaches.
For the application of the integrated approach to BREEAM Communities, a combination of a
matrix approach and qualitative research methods were developed and applied, in order to
undertake the analysis in both theory and practice. A combination of a matrix approach,
questionnaires, focus groups and interviews methods were used. Together these provide the
methodological structure for the three phases of this research, in order to successfully inform
the final findings. It was decided to focus upon qualitative research methods here, since the
investigation of the characteristics of the availability and performance of Adaptive
Governance, Resilient Communities and Intermediaries theories are mainly dependent on
exploring whether there is or is not a level of performance that relates to their hindering
impact or promotion of each of the evaluation frameworks constituent characteristics both
in theory and in practice.
From the perspective of the analysis of the governance and community indicators, and
through applying the matrix approach, it was found that there was a negativity level found
to be associated with both the Adaptive Governance & Resilient Communities characteristics.
While for the Intermediaries theory, it was found that the BC indicators in both governance
and social contexts are more likely showing a neutral performance.
7.1.4 Objective – 4: Application the Integrated Approach for the Analysis of BC to
address adaptation to CC in practice
To investigate the impact of the Case study NSA in application to the project case study
(Media City) to promote the adaptation; through the analysis of the actors’ perceptions in
relation to the three identified theoretical approaches.
The analysis undertaken addresses the three theoretical approaches and aims to evaluate
the extent to which the selected indicators in the BREEAM Communities tool, in practice
247
through expert actors and the community, actually work. Notably, negative community
feedback was found in association with Adaptive Governance and intermediaries’
characteristics. Experts’ responses suggested negative adaptive capacity for the Resilient
Communities and to a lesser extent the Adaptive Governance. Finally, regarding the role of
selected BREEAM Communities indicators as intermediaries, both experts and community
have reported negative feedback with regards the intermediaries and mediators’
characteristics.
These results have informed the selection of priorities for the characteristic and selected
indicators that need more focus in the final phase (3) of this research. It was concluded that
the relationship between the negative indicators at the governance and community levels
that resulted through the Adaptive Governance and Resilient Communities analysis and the
role of these BREEAM Communities indicators needs wider investigation. This investigation
can also show whether the enhancement of BREEAM Communities indicators as
intermediaries have the capacity to influence enhancement in the Adaptive Governance and
Resilient Communities results outcomes as well.
7.1.5 Objective – 5: Proposing potentials for enhancement through BREEAM
Communities indicators to address the challenges in the social context
To evaluate the implication of key findings that can potentially be applied in enhancing the
role of the NSA case study in the governance and community levels, and through proposing
strategic implications for the enhancement potential.
This objective has been achieved through the discussion of the implications of and the
potentials for enhancement that selected BREEAM Communities indicators have as
intermediaries, particularly in their application in Media City. This phase of the work found
that in order to address the challenges associated with the governance level and to promote
the Adaptive Governance process, the role of BREEAM Communities intermediaries’
characteristics require enhancement and to be applied for each characteristic. It’s concluded
that the enhancement of intermediary characteristics in BC is important to influence the
negative characteristics of adaptive governance. This was accompanied by the finding that
the selected BREEAM Communities indicators Design Review & Community Management of
Facilities, both currently optional should be made mandatory and with the need to better
248
focus on the Consultation Plan and Consultation & Engagement indicators, regarding the
Intermediaries’ characteristics inclusion and embedding within the process and thus the
outcomes.
For the community level, it can be concluded that the intermediary role of key indicators of
BREEAM Communities, particularly, represented by the mediator’s characteristics are
important to be enhanced throughout in order to influence the enhancement of the three
Resilient Communities characteristics. It was suggested that for this to be achieved, the
enhancement could be targeted at the mandatory indicator Demographic Needs and
Priorities indicator, as well as the translation of the currently optional Adapting to Climate
Change indicator into one that is mandatory. A need to focus on risks preparation is also
needed regarding both indicators of Flood Risks Assessment & Flood Risk Management. It
was also concluded that new indicators should be proposed that focus on the increase of
community awareness and knowledge and social learning.
List of recommendations in relation to BREEAM Communities
To conclude, the list of recommendations in relation to BREEAM Communities indicators that
are suggested, are as follows:
• A need for a better focus on the mandatory indicators: Consultation Plan (GO01) &
Consultation & Engagement (GO02), in particular regarding enhancement associated
with the intermediary characteristics that relate to: information availability,
Communication process, Training and educational & long-term programs available
for addressing sustainability and adaptation to climate change.
• There is a need to make the two optional indicators at the governance level, Design
Review (GO03) & Community Management of Facilities (GO04), mandatory.
• There is a need to make the optional indicator, Adapting to Climate Change (ACC),
mandatory, due to its potential role in promoting attention to Climate Change and
the adaptation process at the community level.
• A need to ensure that there is consideration of community preparation for various
risk scenarios and on the risk management process within the mandatory indicator,
Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), and through making the optional indicator, Flood risk
management (FRM), mandatory.
• Additional focus on issues that relate to Community feelings of attachment & social
engagement within the mandatory indicator, Demographic Needs Priorities (DNP) as
249
well as within the currently optional indicators, of the Public Realm (PR) and the
Delivery of Services, Facilities & Amenities (DSFA).
• Adding focus on issues that relate to enhanced delivery of human health and well-
being to the mandatory indicator, Demographic Needs Priorities (DNP) as well as to
the optional indicators: Delivery of Services, Facilities and Amenities (DSFA), Utilities
(Us) & Local Parking (LP).
• Adding an indicator at the governance level that is directly associated with education
characteristic(s): in particular relating to enhancing the focus on community learning
about Climate Change, sustainability and the adaptation process.
• Adding an indicator that has specific focus and relates to the process of community
knowledge and awareness enhancement regarding their climate, environment and
the sustainability process as well as associated strategies.
7.2 Limitations of the research
Although the results of the research are important, some limitations in the study need to be
acknowledged. These include the following:
- This study considered results obtained from one case study, Media City only. This
approach nevertheless remains valid, especially when the field of research remains
in its exploratory phases, and could give wide range of indicative results according to
the inclusion of various experts and community individuals. This approach is
recommended in the context of adaptation to Climate Change and sustainability
literature, as it involves the perceptions from both top-down and bottom-up levels.
- The study focused on the impacts of application of certain BREEAM Communities
indicators only to influence social adaptation. It aimed to investigate the
performance of these through considering the performance of both the indicators
and actors in the network associated with the indicators.
- The study was limited to a single case study NSA tool and did not explore the
potential associated with other neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools.
However, the selection of BREEAM Communities as a representative NSA was a part
of the study, based on its importance and potentials in the social context, compared
to the other two neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools.
- The practical case study investigation has considered the water sustainability focus
as the main aspect of the physical context for the questionnaire and the interviews
250
with the experts and community respectively. Therefore, the focus was on water
only, and did not address other important aspects including materials, energy or
transport to any significant extent. However, this enabled a narrower focus within
limited resources of a PhD and water was selected as this sector is most significantly
impacted and related to climatic change impacts and risk, and it was focused on as
the main sustainable strategy identified in the Media City development process.
- Regarding the sample limitation, the questionnaires were distributed to the experts
that were available at the time of the research. The number of valid respondents
was, as a result of accessibility of individuals, limited to 13. Approaching larger
samples number was difficult according to their changing working place or leaving
the country after being involved in MediaCity.
- Finally, regarding the community participants in the focus groups sessions. The
participants only included those people who live, work and or studied in MediaCity.
However, the people who are living in neighbouring areas to MediaCity were not
involved and as such, could be considered a limitation of the scope of the work
presented. This limitation was again associated with the inherent resource
limitations associated with PhD study.
7.3 Directions for further research
Addressing adaptation to climate change at a neighbourhood level in the social context is not
an easy task, yet it is a necessary issue, and could be addressed through a successful
application of sustainability tools at the community scale. It should be said, that these tools
are still nascent, and their development is an ongoing process. However, investigating these
tools potentials in theory and practice can be a beneficial matter in diagnosing and presenting
the problems that are associated with planning and delivering the outcome.
This research has touched on a variety of issues related with adaptation to Climate Change
and sustainability assessment tools, particularly associated with indicators in the BREEAM
Communities NSA. Based on the findings from this work, further research may be considered
that focuses on some of the specific issues raised by this work and in order to provide a more
in-depth inquiry. Possible future research directions may include:
251
- Neighbourhood design (new development)
An important area for future research is related with comparing the NSA potentials in the
governance of the new development neighbourhood development and comparing this role
with the regeneration neighbourhood development. This area is important to show the
interventions, strategies, and processes that relate to the engagement of actors and the
influences on the decision-making process.
- Risks evaluation
Further evaluation of the impacts of the neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools,
especially in terms of evaluation of their potential to enable appropriate response to risk
resilience in theory and practice, is required. A deeper exploration of the neighbourhood
sustainability assessment tools role on risk assessment and management to influence people
lives before, during and after risks, is needed. This area is important regarding identifying the
strategies and methods for adaptation to risks through the integration of resilience and
sustainability.
- Economic issues
Further work is required regarding the focus on the economic aspects of the application
effects of the NSAs. In this area of research, economic sustainability is important and remains
weak in the current literature despite its importance to adaptation to Climate Change. There
is a need to understand what areas are important and what areas require further focus in
NSAs to make communities economically stronger, in association to the various types of
communities. This study should be undertaken in different communities with different
economic status. Further, it is likely to be beneficial to compare communities who relied on
local resources in their daily life and others which do not. This study would be really
important to inform the necessary addition of other indicators or probably categories to NSAs
to positively influence the economic sustainability.
252
- Additional indicators
A very important line of research would also be to examine the effects of these characteristics
and theoretical approaches in relation to other sectors regarding the application of NSAs.
The study of various sectors such as: Energy, Transportation, Ecology that the NSAs constitute
would likely inform greater understanding of the performance and impacts of NSAs on
various sectors in relation to Climate Change in both theory and practice. This study would
be important to diagnose the sector that has greater challenges or negative aspects among
the others, to provide enhancement in structure, coverage and performance.
- Community engagement & management
Further studies on pathways to increase engagement of the community in the planning and
decision-making of neigbourhood sustainability, in addressing better adaptation outcomes
to Climate Change is needed. In this area of study, different communities need to be
included, and their differences regarding the social attributes such age, gender, education,
and employments can be included to influence the various social matters in communities.
Further studies on the development of pathways for the community management of facilities
in the physical, social & economic aspects in the sustainable neighbourhoods, are also
needed, and these studies should be linked to the community engagement process outcomes
as well.
- Research methods
An important issue for further research on the impacts of NSAs on adaptation in the social
context is to consider the implementation of different methodologies in the research
process. For instance, using both the quantitative and qualitative research methods, and
using the qualitative methods in depth to investigate the psychological, cultural and the well-
being and health in greater depth. This research should cover a wide range of community, in
order to identify the real impacts of the neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools on
these issues and important aspects. On the other hand, other methods could be used such
as quantitative methods regarding the potential focus on the NSAs impact in the physical
context regarding the sectors such as water sectors, energy, transportation, and other
important sectors that can enhance adaptation to Climate Change.
253
References
• Adebayo, A.A., Mubi, A.M., Zemba, A.A. and Umar, A.S., 2013. Awareness of climate
change impacts and adaptation in Adamawa state, Nigeria. Int J Environ Ecol Family
Urban Stud, 3(1), pp.11-18.
• Adger, W.N., 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related?. Progress in human
geography, 24(3), pp.347-364.
• Adger, W.N., 2001. Scales of governance and environmental justice for adaptation and
mitigation of climate change. Journal of International development, 13(7), pp.921-931.
• Adger, W.N., 2006. Vulnerability. Global environmental change, 16(3), pp.268-281.
• Adger, W.N., 2010. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. In
Der klimawandel (pp. 327-345). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
• Adger, W.N., Arnell, N.W. and Tompkins, E.L., 2005. Successful adaptation to climate
change across scales. Global environmental change, 15(2), pp.77-86.
• Adger, W.N., Barnett, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N. and O'brien, K., 2013. Cultural
dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 3(2),
p.112.
• Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Nelson, D.R., Berkes, F., Eakin, H., Folke, C., Galvin, K.,
Gunderson, L., Goulden, M., O'Brien, K. and Ruitenbeek, J., 2011. Resilience implications
of policy responses to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change,
2(5), pp.757-766.
• Adger, W.N., Hughes, T.P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R. and Rockström, J., 2005. Social-
ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309(5737), pp.1036-1039.
• Adger, W.N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D.R., Naess, L.O.,
Wolf, J. and Wreford, A., 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change?.
Climatic change, 93(3), pp.335-354.
• Adger, W.N., Brooks, N., Bentham, G., Agnew, M. and Eriksen, S., 2005. New indicators
of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research.
• Agrawal A (2008) The role of local institutions in adaptation to climate change. In: Papers
of the Social Dimensions of Climate Change Workshop. The World Bank, Washington DC,
March 5–6, 2008
254
• Agrawal, A., 2010. Local institutions and adaptation to climate change. Social dimensions
of climate change: Equity and vulnerability in a warming world, 2, pp.173-178.
• Akter, T. and Simonovic, S.P., 2005. Aggregation of fuzzy views of a large number of
stakeholders for multi-objective flood management decision-making. Journal of
environmental management, 77(2), pp.133-143.
• Amundsen, H., Berglund, F. and Westskog, H., 2010. Overcoming barriers to climate
change adaptation—a question of multilevel governance?. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 28(2), pp.276-289.
• Apostolopoulos, N., Newbery, R. and Gkartzios, M., 2018. Social enterprise and
community resilience: Examining a Greek response to turbulent times. Journal of Rural
studies.
• Armitage, D., 2005. Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource
management. Environmental management, 35(6), pp.703-715.
• Armitage, D., Béné, C., Charles, A.T., Johnson, D. and Allison, E.H., 2012. The interplay of
well-being and resilience in applying a social-ecological perspective. Ecology and Society
17(4): 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04940-170415
• Arnadottir, H. ; Hreggvidsdottir, H. (2016). Urridaholt neighbourhood Iceland -
Sustainable drainage solutions interwoven in the urban pattern - a cooperative approach.
Novatech 2016, 28.06 – 01.07 2016, Lyon, France.
• Arora-Jonsson, S., 2011. Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and
climate change. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), pp.744-751.
• Arayici, Y., 2014. Knowledge intensive regeneration for knowledge societies and
economies. Global Built Environment Review, 9(1), pp.68-85.
• Arnott, J.C., Moser, S.C. and Goodrich, K.A., 2016. Evaluation that counts: A review of
climate change adaptation indicators & metrics using lessons from effective evaluation
and science-practice interaction. Environmental Science & Policy, 66, pp.383-392.
• Auld, G.W., Diker, A., Bock, M.A., Boushey, C.J., Bruhn, C.M., Cluskey, M., Edlefsen, M.,
Goldberg, D.L., Misner, S.L., Olson, B.H. and Reicks, M., 2007. Development of a decision
tree to determine appropriateness of NVivo in analyzing qualitative data sets. Journal of
nutrition education and behavior, 39(1), pp.37-47.
• Aytur, S.A., Hecht, J.S. and Kirshen, P., 2015. Aligning climate change adaptation planning
with adaptive governance: Lessons from Exeter, NH. Journal of Contemporary Water
Research & Education, 155(1), pp.83-98.
255
• Bakar, A.H.A. and Cheen, K.S., 2013. A framework for assessing the sustainable urban
development. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, pp.484-492.
• Bahadur, A.V., Ibrahim, M., Tanner, T., 2010. The Resilience Renaissance? Unpacking of
Resilience for Tackling Climate Change and Disasters. In: Strengthening Climate
Resilience Discussion Paper 1. IDS, Brighton available at: http://community.eldis.
org/.59e0d267/resilience-renaissance.pdf
• Balkema, A.J., Preisig, H.A., Otterpohl, R. and Lambert, F.J., 2002. Indicators for the
sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban water, 4(2), pp.153-
161.
• Banister, D., 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport policy, 15(2), pp.73-80.
• Barnett, J., 2003. Security and climate change. Global environmental change, 13(1), pp.7-
17.
• Barrett, R. and Maglio, P.P., 1999. Intermediaries: An approach to manipulating
information streams. IBM Systems Journal, 38(4), pp.629-641.
• Barros, V.R., Field, C.B., Dokke, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee,
M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C. and Girma, B., 2014. Climate change 2014:
impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability-Part B: regional aspects-Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
• Basit, T., 2003. Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis.
Educational research, 45(2), pp.143-154.
• Bates, B., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Wu, S. & Palutikof, J. (eds), Climate Change and Water:
Technical Paper vi, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC: Geneva, 2008.
• Berkes, F. and Ross, H., 2013. Community resilience: toward an integrated approach.
Society & Natural Resources, 26(1), pp.5-20.
• Bennett, N.J., 2016. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and
environmental management. Conservation Biology, 30(3), pp.582-592.
• Berardi, U., 2012. Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: rating systems
and rated buildings. Sustainable Development, 20(6), pp.411-424.
• Bierbaum, R., Smith, J.B., Lee, A., Blair, M., Carter, L., Chapin, F.S., Fleming, P., Ruffo, S.,
Stults, M., McNeeley, S. and Wasley, E., 2013. A comprehensive review of climate
adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed. Mitigation and
adaptation strategies for global change, 18(3), pp.361-406.
256
• Bird, C. and Barnes, J., 2014. Scaling up community activism: the role of intermediaries
in collective approaches to community energy. People, Place & Policy Online, 8(3).
• Blewitt, J., 2008. Community, empowerment and sustainable development. Green books.
• Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Pope, J., 2012. Sustainability assessment: the state
of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), pp.53-62.
• Boyle, L., Michell, K. and Viruly, F., 2018. A Critique of the Application of Neighborhood
Sustainability Assessment Tools in Urban Regeneration. Sustainability, 10(4), p.1005.
• Brenkert, A.L. and Malone, E.L., 2005. Modeling vulnerability and resilience to climate
change: a case study of India and Indian states. Climatic Change, 72(1-2), pp.57-102.
• Bronk, K.C., 2012. The exemplar methodology: An approach to studying the leading edge
of development. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 2(1), p.5.
• Brooks, N., Adger, W. N., & Kelly, P. M. 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and
adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global
environmental change, 15(2), 151-163.
• Brown, J.D., 2000. What issues affect Likert-scale questionnaire formats. Shiken: JALT
Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 4(1).
• Brown, K. and Westaway, E., 2011. Agency, capacity, and resilience to environmental
change: lessons from human development, well-being, and disasters. Annual review of
environment and resources, 36, pp.321-342.
• Broto, V.C., 2017. Urban governance and the politics of climate change. World
development, 93, pp.1-15.
• Brugnach, M., Craps, M. and Dewulf, A.R.P.J., 2017. Including indigenous peoples in
climate change mitigation: addressing issues of scale, knowledge and power. Climatic
change, 140(1), pp.19-32.
• Bruni, A. and Teli, M., 2007. Reassembling the social—An introduction to actor network
theory. Management Learning, 38(1), pp.121-125.
• Burn, S.M., Winter, P.L., Hori, B. and Silver, N.C., 2012. Gender, ethnic identity, and
environmental concern in Asian Americans and European Americans. Human Ecology
Review, pp.136-145.
• Bush, R.E., Bale, C.S., Powell, M., Gouldson, A., Taylor, P.G. and Gale, W.F., 2017. The role
of intermediaries in low carbon transitions–Empowering innovations to unlock district
heating in the UK. Journal of cleaner production, 148, pp.137-147.
• Butler, J.R.A., Wise, R.M., Skewes, T.D., Bohensky, E.L., Peterson, N., Suadnya, W.,
Yanuartati, Y., Handayani, T., Habibi, P., Puspadi, K. and Bou, N., 2015. Integrating top-
257
down and bottom-up adaptation planning to build adaptive capacity: a structured
learning approach. Coastal Management, 43(4), pp.346-364.
• Cannon, T., & Müller-Mahn, D. (2010). Vulnerability, resilience and development
discourses in context of climate change. Natural hazards, 55(3), 621-635.
• Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J.M. and Abel, N., 2001. From metaphor to
measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8), pp.765-781.
• Carrasco, J.A., Hogan, B., Wellman, B. and Miller, E.J., 2008. Agency in social activity
interactions: The role of social networks in time and space. Tijdschrift voor economische
en sociale geografie, 99(5), pp.562-583.
• Carter, J.G., Cavan, G., Connelly, A., Guy, S., Handley, J. and Kazmierczak, A., 2015.
Climate Change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation. Progress in Planning,
95, pp.1-66.
• Chandra, A., Acosta, J., Howard, S., Uscher-Pines, L., Williams, M., Yeung, D., Garnett, J.
and Meredith, L.S., 2011. Building community resilience to disasters: A way forward to
enhance national health security. Rand health quarterly, 1(1).
• Chapin III, F.S., Hoel, M., Carpenter, S.R., Lubchenco, J., Walker, B., Callaghan, T.V., Folke,
C., Levin, S.A., Mäler, K.G., Nilsson, C. and Barrett, S., 2006. Building resilience and
adaptation to manage Arctic change. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment,
35(4), pp.198-202.
• Chapin III, F.S., Peterson, G., Berkes, F., Callaghan, T.V., Angelstam, P., Apps, M., Beier,
C., Bergeron, Y., Crépin, A.S., Danell, K. and Elmqvist, T., 2004. Resilience and vulnerability
of northern regions to social and environmental change. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human
Environment, 33(6), pp.344-349.
• Charlton, M.B. and Arnell, N.W., 2011. Adapting to climate change impacts on water
resources in England—an assessment of draft water resources management
plans. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), pp.238-248.
• Chelleri, L., Schuetze, T. and Salvati, L., 2015. Integrating resilience with urban
sustainability in neglected neighborhoods: Challenges and opportunities of transitioning
to decentralized water management in Mexico City. Habitat International, 48, pp.122-
130.
• Chilaka, Marcus A 2011, MediacityUK: A health impact assessment, Project Report,
University of Salford. (Unpublished) (available at:
http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/18987. Accessed 23.05.19)
258
• Choguill, C.L., 2008. Developing sustainable neighbourhoods. Habitat International,
32(1), pp.41-48.
• Cash, D.W., Adger, W.N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L. and
Young, O., 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a
multilevel world. Ecology and society, 11(2).
• Chaskin, R.J., 2008. Resilience, community, and resilient communities: Conditioning
contexts and collective action. Child Care in Practice, 14(1), pp.65-74.
• Chilaka, M.A., 2011. MediacityUK: A health impact assessment.
• Cohen, S., Demeritt, D., Robinson, J. and Rothman, D., 1998. Climate change and
sustainable development: towards dialogue. Global Environmental Change, 8(4), pp.341-
371.
• Collet, L., Ruelland, D., Estupina, V.B., Dezetter, A. and Servat, E., 2015. Water supply
sustainability and adaptation strategies under anthropogenic and climatic changes of a
meso-scale Mediterranean catchment. Science of the Total Environment, 536, pp.589-
602.
• Communities, B.R.E.E.A.M., 2009. Technical Manual. BREEAM Communities assessor
manual development planning application stage SD5065B, BRE Global Ltd.
• Conrad, C.C. and Hilchey, K.G., 2011. A review of citizen science and community-based
environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental monitoring and
assessment, 176(1-4), pp.273-291.
• Cote, I.M. and Darling, E.S., 2010. Rethinking ecosystem resilience in the face of climate
change. PLoS biology, 8(7), p.e1000438.
• Cote, M. and Nightingale, A.J., 2012. Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating
social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in Human Geography,
36(4), pp.475-489.
• Council, J.G. and Japan Sustainable Building Consortium, 2007. CASBEE for urban
development (CASBEE-UD).
• Council, J.G. and Japan Sustainable Building Consortium, 2014. CASBEE for urban
development (CASBEE-UD).
• Council, U.G.B., 2009. LEED for neighborhood development. a prescription for green
healthy communities. Available at: http://www. greenhomeguide. org/ living
reen/led_for_neighborhood_ development. html. Accessed March, 15.
259
• Cundill, G. and Fabricius, C., 2010. Monitoring the governance dimension of natural
resource co-management. Ecology and society, 15(1): 15.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art15/
• Cutter, S.L., 2016. Resilience to what? Resilience for whom?. The Geographical Journal,
182(2), pp.110-113.
• Cutter, S.L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E. and Webb, J., 2008. A
place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global
environmental change, 18(4), pp.598-606.
• Crona, B.I. and Parker, J.N., 2012. Learning in support of governance: theories, methods,
and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource
governance. Ecology and Society, 17(1): 32. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04534-170132
• Dal, B., Ozturk, N., Alper, U., Sonmez, D. and Cokelez, A., 2015. An analysis of the
teachers’ climate change awareness. Athens Journal of Education, 2(2), pp.111-122.
• Dalziell, E.P. and McManus, S.T., 2004. Resilience, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity:
implications for system performance. International Forum for Engineering Decision
Making (IFED), Switzerland. pp.1-17.
• Danilovic, M. and Sandkull, B., 2005. The use of dependence structure matrix and domain
mapping matrix in managing uncertainty in multiple project situations. International
journal of project management, 23(3), pp.193-203.
• Dankelman, I., 2002. Climate change: Learning from gender analysis and women's
experiences of organising for sustainable development. Gender & Development, 10(2),
pp.21-29.
• Davoudi, Simin, Keith Shaw, L. Jamila Haider, Allyson E. Quinlan, Garry D. Peterson, Cathy
Wilkinson, Hartmut Fünfgeld, Darryn McEvoy, Libby Porter, and Simin Davoudi.
"Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end?“Reframing” resilience: challenges for
planning theory and practice interacting traps: resilience assessment of a pasture
management system in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience: what does it mean in
planning practice? Resilience as a useful concept for climate change adaptation? The
politics of resilience for planning: a cautionary note: edited by Simin Davoudi and Libby
Porter." Planning theory & practice 13, no. 2 (2012): 299-333.
• Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. and Brown, C., 2011. The social dimension of
sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable development,
19(5), pp.289-300.
260
• Derissen, S., Quaas, M.F. and Baumgärtner, S., 2011. The relationship between resilience
and sustainability of ecological-economic systems. Ecological Economics, 70(6), pp.1121-
1128.
• Deppisch, S., & Hasibovic, S. 2013. Social-ecological resilience thinking as a bridging
concept in transdisciplinary research on climate-change adaptation. Natural
hazards, 67(1), 117-127.
• Dewulf, A. and Termeer, C., 2015. Governing the future? The potential of adaptive delta
management to contribute to governance capabilities for dealing with the wicked
problem of climate change adaptation. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 6(4),
pp.759-771.
• Djalante, R., Holley, C. and Thomalla, F., 2011. Adaptive governance and managing
resilience to natural hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2(4), pp.1-14.
• Dodman, D. and Mitlin, D., 2013. Challenges for community‐based adaptation:
discovering the potential for transformation. Journal of International Development,
25(5), pp.640-659.
• Döll, P., 2009. Vulnerability to the impact of climate change on renewable groundwater
resources: a global-scale assessment. Environmental Research Letters, 4(3), p.035006.
• Drummond, A., Hall, L.C., Sauer, J.D. and Palmer, M.A., 2018. Is public awareness and
perceived threat of climate change associated with governmental mitigation targets?.
Climatic change, 149(2), pp.159-171.
• Duit, A., Galaz, V., Eckerberg, K. and Ebbesson, J., 2010. Governance, complexity, and
resilience. Global Environmental Change 20 (3), 263-546.
• Eakin, H. C., & Wehbe, M. B. (2009). Linking local vulnerability to system sustainability in
a resilience framework: two cases from Latin America. Climatic Change, 93(3-4), 355-
377.
• Ebi, K.L. and Semenza, J.C., 2008. Community-based adaptation to the health impacts of
climate change. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(5), pp.501-507.
• Edwards, A.R., 2010. Thriving beyond sustainability: Pathways to a resilient society. New
Society Publishers.
• Elala, D., Vulnerability assessment of surface water supply systems due to climate change
and other impacts in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2011.
• Elander, I., 2002. Partnerships and urban governance. International social science
journal, 54(172), pp.191-204.
261
• Eisenman, D.P., Adams, R.M. and Rivard, H., 2016. Measuring outcomes in a community
resilience program: a new metric for evaluating results at the household level. PLoS
currents, 8.
• Engle, N.L., 2011. Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change,
21(2), pp.647-656.
• Engle, N.L., 2013. The role of drought preparedness in building and mobilizing adaptive
capacity in states and their community water systems. Climatic change, 118(2), pp.291-
306.
• Engle, N.L., de Bremond, A., Malone, E.L. and Moss, R.H., 2014. Towards a resilience
indicator framework for making climate-change adaptation decisions. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 19(8), pp.1295-1312.
• Engle, N.L. and Lemos, M.C., 2010. Unpacking governance: building adaptive capacity to
climate change of river basins in Brazil. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), pp.4-13.
• Ensor, J. and Harvey, B., 2015. Social learning and climate change adaptation: evidence
for international development practice. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change,
6(5), pp.509-522.
• Eriksen, S., Aldunce, P., Bahinipati, C.S., Martins, R.D.A., Molefe, J.I., Nhemachena, C.,
O'brien, K., Olorunfemi, F., Park, J., Sygna, L. and Ulsrud, K., 2011. When not every
response to climate change is a good one: Identifying principles for sustainable
adaptation. Climate and Development, 3(1), pp.7-20.
• Eriksen, S.H. and Kelly, P.M., 2007. Developing credible vulnerability indicators for
climate adaptation policy assessment. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global
change, 12(4), pp.495-524.
• Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. and Alkassim, R.S., 2016. Comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), pp.1-4.
• Fehren, O., 2010. Who organises the community? The university as an intermediary
actor. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 3,
pp.104-119.
• Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., Ballard, H.L. and Sturtevant, V.E., 2008. Adaptive
management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: a
study of five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecology and
Society 13(2): 4: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art4/
262
• Ferrara, I. and Serret, Y., 2008. Household behaviour and the environment, reviewing the
evidence. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Paris, France,
pp.153-180.
• Few, R., 2003. Flooding, vulnerability and coping strategies: local responses to a global
threat. Progress in Development Studies, 3(1), pp.43-58.
• Few, R., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E.L., 2007. Public participation and climate change
adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate policy, 7(1), pp.46-59.
• Fiksel, J., 2006. Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach. Sustainability:
Science, Practice and Policy, 2(2), pp.14-21.
• Fitzpatrick, J.L., 2004. Exemplars as case studies: Reflections on the links between theory,
practice, and context. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(4), pp.541-559.
• Fleischhauer, M., 2008. The role of spatial planning in strengthening urban resilience. In
Resilience of Cities to Terrorist and other Threats (pp. 273-298). Springer, Dordrecht.
• Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative
inquiry, 12(2), pp.219-245.
• Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems
analyses. Global environmental change, 16(3), pp.253-267.
• Folke, C., Colding, J. and Berkes, F., 2003. Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive
capacity in social-ecological systems. Navigating social-ecological systems: Building
resilience for complexity and change, 9(1), pp.352-387.
• Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S. and Walker, B., 2002.
Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of
transformations. AMBIO: A journal of the human environment, 31(5), pp.437-440.
• Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-
ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, pp.441-473.
• Frumkin, H., Hess, J., Luber, G., Malilay, J. and McGeehin, M., 2008. Climate change: the
public health response. American journal of public health, 98(3), pp.435-445.
• Füssel, H.M. and Klein, R.J., 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution
of conceptual thinking. Climatic change, 75(3), pp.301-329.
• Gallopín, G.C., 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity.
Global environmental change, 16(3), pp.293-303.
• Gargiulo, M. and Benassi, M., 2000. Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion,
structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization science, 11(2), pp.183-
196.
263
• Garland, R., 1991. The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable. Marketing bulletin, 2(1),
pp.66-70.
• Garmestani, A.S. and Benson, M.H., 2013. A framework for resilience-based governance
of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18(1): 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-
05180-180109
• Gentle, P. and Maraseni, T.N., 2012. Climate change, poverty and livelihoods: adaptation
practices by rural mountain communities in Nepal. Environmental science & policy, 21,
pp.24-34.
• Gillard, Ross, Andrew Gouldson, Jouni Paavola, and James Van Alstine. "Transformational
responses to climate change: beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation
and adaptation." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 7, no. 2 (2016): 251-
265.
• Glosinska, E. (2014) Floodplain Management in the Context of Assessment and Changes
of Flood Risk and the Environment - a Review. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies.
23 (6). pp. 1895-1904
• Gluchshenko, O., & Foerster, P. (2013, June). Performance based approach to investigate
resilience and robustness of an ATM System. In Tenth USA/Europe Air Traffic
Management Research and Development Seminar.
• Godschalk, D.R., 2003. Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities. Natural hazards
review, 4(3), pp.136-143.
• Graugaard, J.D., 2012. A tool for building community resilience? A case study of the
Lewes Pound. Local Environment, 17(2), pp.243-260.
• Goodman, R.M., Speers, M.A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M., Parker, E., Smith, S.R.,
Sterling, T.D. and Wallerstein, N., 1998. Identifying and defining the dimensions of
community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. health education & Behavior,
25(3), pp.258-278.
• Gorod, A., White, B.E., Ireland, V., Gandhi, S.J. and Sauser, B., 2014. Case studies in
system of systems, enterprise systems, and complex systems engineering. CRC Press.
• Green, L.W. and Mercer, S.L., 2001. Can public health researchers and agencies reconcile
the push from funding bodies and the pull from communities?. American journal of
public health, 91(12), pp.1926-1929.
• Grothmann, T. and Patt, A., 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process
of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change, 15(3), pp.199-
213.
264
• Guest, J.S., Skerlos, S.J., Barnard, J.L., Beck, M.B., Daigger, G.T., Hilger, H., Jackson, S.J.,
Karvazy, K., Kelly, L., Macpherson, L. and Mihelcic, J.R., 2009. A new planning and design
paradigm to achieve sustainable resource recovery from wastewater.
• Gustafsson, J., 2017. Single case studies vs. multiple case studies: A comparative study.
Academy of Business, Engineering and Science, Halmstad University Sweden, pp. 1–15.
• Haapio, A. and Viitaniemi, P., 2008. A critical review of building environmental
assessment tools. Environmental impact assessment review, 28(7), pp.469-482.
• Haapio, A., 2012. Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 32(1), pp.165-169.
• Haasnoot, M., Middelkoop, H., Offermans, A., Van Beek, E. and Van Deursen, W.P., 2012.
Exploring pathways for sustainable water management in river deltas in a changing
environment. Climatic Change, 115(3-4), pp.795-819.
• Haimes, Y.Y., 2009. On the definition of resilience in systems. Risk Analysis: An
International Journal, 29(4), pp.498-501.
• Haines, A., Kovats, R.S., Campbell-Lendrum, D. and Corvalán, C., 2006. Climate change
and human health: impacts, vulnerability and public health. Public health, 120(7), pp.
585-596.
• Hallegatte, S., 2009. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global
Environmental Change, 19(2), pp. 240–247.
• Hallegatte, S. and Corfee-Morlot, J., 2011. Understanding climate change impacts,
vulnerability and adaptation at city scale: an introduction. Climatic Change, 104(1), pp.1-
12.
• Hallegatte, S. and Engle, N.L., 2019. The search for the perfect indicator: Reflections on
monitoring and evaluation of resilience for improved climate risk management. Climate
Risk Management, 23, pp.1-6.
• Hamedani, A.Z. and Huber, F., 2012. A comparative study of DGNB, LEED and BREEAM
certificate systems in urban sustainability. The Sustainable City VII: Urban Regeneration
and Sustainability, 1121.
• Hanjra, M.A, & Qureshi, M.E., 2010. Global water crisis and future food security in an era
of climate change. Food Policy, 35(5), pp. 365–377.
• Hemphill2, L., McGreal, S. and Berry, J., 2004. An indicator-based approach to measuring
sustainable urban regeneration performance: Part 2, empirical evaluation and case-study
analysis. Urban Studies, 41(4), pp.757-772.
265
• Hansen, A., Bi, L., Saniotis, A. and Nitschke, M., 2013. Vulnerability to extreme heat and
climate change: is ethnicity a factor?. Global health action, 6.
• Hatfield-Dodds, S., Nelson, R. and Cook, D.C., 2007, February. Adaptive governance: an
introduction, and implications for public policy. In Paper provided by Australian
Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2007 Conference (51st) (No.
10440).
• Hayes, N. and Westrup, C., 2014. Consultants as intermediaries and mediators in the
construction of information and communication technologies for development.
Information Technologies & International Development, 10(2), pp.19.
• Hinkel, J., 2011. “Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: towards a
clarification of the science–policy interface. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), pp.198-
208.
• Hinkel, J., Bisaro, S., Downing, T., Hofmann, M.E., Lonsdale, K., Mcevoy, D., Tabara, J.D.,
2009. Learning to adapt. Narratives of decision makers adapting to climate change. In:
Hulme, M., Neufeldt, H. (Eds.), Making Climate Change Work for Us: European
Perspectives on Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. Cambridge University Press, pp.
113–134.
• Hodson, M. and Marvin, S., 2010. Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how
would we know if they were?. Research policy, 39(4), pp.477-485.
• Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of
ecology and systematics, 4(1), pp.1-23.
• Holman, I.P. and Trawick, P., 2011. Developing adaptive capacity within groundwater
abstraction management systems. Journal of environmental management, 92(6),
pp.1542-1549.
• Howells, J., 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research
policy, 35(5), pp.715-728.
• Hordijk, M., Sara, L.M. and Sutherland, C., 2014. Resilience, transition or transformation?
A comparative analysis of changing water governance systems in four southern
cities. Environment and Urbanization, 26(1), pp.130-146.
• Hughes, T.P., Baird, A.H., Bellwood, D.R., Card, M., Connolly, S.R., Folke, C., Grosberg, R.,
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jackson, J.B., Kleypas, J. and Lough, J.M., 2003. Climate change,
human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. science, 301(5635), pp.929-933.
266
• Hutchison, A.J., Johnston, L.H. and Breckon, J.D., 2010. Using QSR‐NVivo to facilitate the
development of a grounded theory project: an account of a worked example.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(4), pp.283-302.
• Hyytinen, K., Gallouj, F. and Toivonen, M., 2014, July. A multi-criteria and multi-actor
perspective for the evaluation of sustainability services. In 5th International Conference
on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics AHFE 2014.
• Ikeme, J., 2003. Equity, environmental justice and sustainability: incomplete approaches
in climate change politics. Global environmental change, 13(3), pp.195-206.
• Ivey, J.L., Smithers, J., de Loë, R.C. and Kreutzwiser, R.D., 2004. Community capacity for
adaptation to climate-induced water shortages: linking institutional complexity and local
actors. Environmental management, 33(1), pp.36-47.
• Jamieson, S., 2004. Likert scales: how to (ab) use them. Medical education, 38(12),
pp.1217-1218.
• Janssen, M.A., Schoon, M.L., Ke, W. and Börner, K., 2006. Scholarly networks on
resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global
environmental change. Global environmental change, 16(3), pp.240-252.
• Johnstone, J.F., Chapin, F.S., Hollingsworth, T.N., Mack, M.C., Romanovsky, V. and
Turetsky, M., 2010. Fire, climate change, and forest resilience in interior Alaska. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research, 40(7), pp.1302-1312.
• Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Turner, L.A., 2007. Toward a definition of mixed
methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(2), pp.112-133.
• Jones, L., Harvey, B. and Godfrey-Wood, R., 2016. The changing role of NGOs in
supporting climate services. BRACED Resilience Intel Paper, 4.
• Jordan, J., 2009. Rethinking community resilience to climate change: Does a social capital
lens help. In Development studies association conference.
• Kakumanu, K.R., Kaluvai, Y.R., Balasubramanian, M., Nagothu, U.S., Kotapati, G.R. and
Karanam, S. 2018, ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE: IMPACT OF CAPACITY BUILDING,
INDIA. Irrigation and Drainage.
• Kang, H., Lee, Y. and Kim, S., 2016. Sustainable building assessment tool for project
decision makers and its development process. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 58, pp.34-47.
• Kearns, A. and Parkinson, M., 2001. The significance of neighbourhood. Urban studies,
38(12), pp.2103-2110.
267
• Keim, M.E., 2008. Building human resilience: the role of public health preparedness and
response as an adaptation to climate change. American journal of preventive medicine,
35(5), pp.508-516.
• Kelly, P.M. and Adger, W.N., 2000. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to
climate change and facilitating adaptation. Climatic change, 47(4), pp.325-352.
• Kinnunen, T. and Koskinen, K. (eds), 2010. Translators' agency. Tampere University Press,
Tampere.
• Kivimaa, P., 2014. Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system
level transitions. Res. Policy 43 (8), 1370–1380.
• Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., Hyysalo, S. and Klerkx, L., 2018. Towards a typology of
intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda.
Research Policy.
• Kooiman, J. (2005) Governing as Governance. Sage Publications, London.
• Kooiman, J. ed., 1993. Modern governance: new government-society interactions. Sage.
• Krasny, M.E. and Tidball, K.G., 2009. Applying a resilience systems framework to urban
environmental education. Environmental education research, 15(4), pp.465-482.
• Kreimer, A., Arnold, M. and Carlin, A. eds., 2003. Building safer cities: the future of
disaster risk. The World Bank.
• Kundzewicz, Z.W., Mata, L.J., Arnell, N.W., Döll, P., Jimenez, B., Miller, K., Oki, T., Şen, Z.
and Shiklomanov, I., 2008. The implications of projected climate change for freshwater
resources and their management.
• Kwok, A.H., Doyle, E.E., Becker, J., Johnston, D. and Paton, D., 2016. What is ‘social
resilience’? Perspectives of disaster researchers, emergency management practitioners,
and policymakers in New Zealand. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 19,
pp.197-211.
• Kyrkou, D. and Karthaus, R., 2011. Urban sustainability standards: predetermined
checklists or adaptable frameworks. Procedia Engineering, 21, pp.204-211.
• L BERG, B.R.U.C.E., 2001. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences.
• Larson, K.L., Polsky, C., Gober, P., Chang, H. and Shandas, V., 2013. Vulnerability of water
systems to the effects of climate change and urbanization: A comparison of Phoenix,
Arizona and Portland, Oregon (USA). Environmental management, 52(1), pp.179-195.
• Latour, B., 1990. On actor-network theory A few clarifications plus more than a few
complications. Soziale Welt, 47(4), pp.1-14.
268
• Latour, B., 1996. On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale welt, pp.369-381.
• Latour B (2004) On using ANT for studying information systems: A (somewhat) Socratic
dialogue. In: Avgerou C, Ciborra C and Land F (eds) The Social Study of Information and
Communication Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 62–76.
• Latour B (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Latour, Bruno and Weibel, Peter. 2005. Making Things Public. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Laukkonen, J., Blanco, P.K., Lenhart, J., Keiner, M., Cavric, B. and Kinuthia-Njenga, C.,
2009. Combining climate change adaptation and mitigation measures at the local level.
Habitat international, 33(3), pp.287-292.
• Lebel, L., Anderies, J.M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T.P. and
Wilson, J., 2006. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-
ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1): 19
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/
• Lee, K.N., 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conservation ecology, 3(2).
• Leichenko, R., 2011. Climate change and urban resilience. Current opinion in
environmental sustainability, 3(3), pp.164-168.
• Leiserowitz, A. and Akerlof, K., 2010. Race, ethnicity and public responses to climate
change. Yale Project on climate change communication, New Haven.
• Lendvai, Noemi, and Paul Stubbs. "Assemblages, Translation, and Intermediaries in South
East Europe: rethinking transnationalism and social policy." European Societies 11, no. 5
(2009): 673-695.
• Liddle, B. and Lung, S., 2010. Age-structure, urbanization, and climate change in
developed countries: revisiting STIRPAT for disaggregated population and consumption-
related environmental impacts. Population and Environment, 31(5), pp.317-343.
• Likens, G. and Lindenmayer, D., 2018. Effective ecological monitoring. CSIRO publishing.
• Lim, B., -Siegfried, E., Burton, I., Malone, E. and Huq, S., 2005. Adaptation policy
frameworks for climate change: developing strategies, policies and measures. Cambridge
University Press, UNDP.
• Lindner, M., Maroschek, M., Netherer, S., Kremer, A., Barbati, A., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., ... &
Marchetti, M. (2010). Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of
European forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4), 698-709.
269
• Lindsay, A., 2018. Social learning as an adaptive measure to prepare for climate change
impacts on water provision in Peru. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 8(4),
pp.477-487.
• Littlewood, J., Spataru, C., Howlett, R.J. and Jain, L.C. eds., 2017. Smart Energy Control
Systems for Sustainable Buildings (Vol. 67). Springer.
• Loucks, D.P., 2000. Sustainable water resources management. Water
international, 25(1), pp.3-10.
• Lockwood, M., 2013. The political sustainability of climate policy: The case of the UK
Climate Change Act. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), pp.1339-1348.
• Loftus, A.C., Anton, B. & Philip, R., Adapting Urban Water Systems to Climate Change: A
Handbook for Decision Makers at the Local Level, ICLEI European Secretariat Gmbh,
2011.
• Longhurst, R., 2003. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key methods in
geography, 3, pp.143-156.
• Lutz, W., Muttarak, R. and Striessnig, E., 2014. Universal education is key to enhanced
climate adaptation. Science, 346(6213), pp.1061-1062.
• Lützkendorf, T. and Balouktsi, M., 2017. Assessing a sustainable urban development:
Typology of indicators and sources of information. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 38,
pp.546-553.
• M. Wiernik, B., S. Ones, D. and Dilchert, S., 2013. Age and environmental sustainability:
a meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7/8), pp.826-856.
• MacDonald, G.M., 2010. Water, climate change, and sustainability in the southwest.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(50), pp.21256-21262.
• Maguire, B. and Cartwright, S., 2008. Assessing a community's capacity to manage
change: a resilience approach to social assessment. Canberra: Bureau of Rural Sciences.
• Magis, K. 2010. Community resilience: an indicator of social sustainability. Society and
Natural Resources, 23(5), 401-416.
• Manzi, T., Lucas, K., Jones, T.L. and Allen, J. eds., 2010. Social sustainability in urban
areas: Communities, connectivity and the urban fabric. Routledge.
• Martine, G. and Schensul, D., 2013. The demography of adaptation to climate change.
UNFPA, IIED, and El Colegio de México.
• Mathers, N., Fox, N. and Hunn, A., 2007. Surveys and questionnaires. Trent: RDSU.
270
• Matthews, E.C., Sattler, M. and Friedland, C.J., 2014. A critical analysis of hazard
resilience measures within sustainability assessment frameworks. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 49, pp.59-69.
• Matthew, R.A. and Hammill, A., 2009. Sustainable development and climate change.
International affairs, 85(6), pp.1117-1128.
• Measham, T.G., Preston, B.L., Smith, T.F., Brooke, C., Gorddard, R., Withycombe, G. and
Morrison, C., 2011. Adapting to climate change through local municipal planning: barriers
and challenges. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 16(8), pp.889-
909.
• Melville, N.P., 2010. Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability.
MIS quarterly, 34(1), pp.1-21.
• McCright, A.M., 2010. The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern
in the American public. Population and Environment, 32(1), pp.66-87.
• McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J. and White, K.S. eds., 2001. Climate
change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to
the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Vol. 2).
Cambridge University Press.
• McCrea, R., Walton, A. and Leonard, R., 2014. A conceptual framework for investigating
community wellbeing and resilience. Rural Society, 23(3), pp.270-282.
• Middelkoop, H., Van Asselt, M., Van't Klooster, S.A., Van Deursen, W., Kwadijk, J.C. and
Buiteveld, H., 2004. Perspectives on flood management in the Rhine and Meuse
rivers. River research and applications, 20(3), pp.327-342.
• Miller, F., Osbahr, H., Boyd, E., Thomalla, F., Bharwani, S., Ziervogel, G., Walker, B.,
Birkmann, J., Van der Leeuw, S., Rockström, J. and Hinkel, J., 2010. Resilience and
vulnerability: complementary or conflicting concepts?. Ecology and Society 15(3): 11.
http:// www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art11/
• Mokhtar, M.B., Aris, A.Z., Munusamy, V. and Praveena, S.M., 2009. Assessment level of
heavy metals in Penaeus monodon and Oreochromis spp. in selected aquaculture ponds
of high densities development area. Eur J Sci Res, 30(3), pp.348-360.
• Moss, T., 2009. Intermediaries and the governance of sociotechnical networks in
transition. Environment and Planning A, 41(6), pp.1480-1495.
• Moss, T., Medd, W., Guy, S. and Marvin, S., 2009. Organising water: The hidden role of
intermediary work. Water Alternatives, 2(1), pp.16-33.
271
• Mulyana, W., Setiono, I., Selzer, A. K., Zhang, S., Dodman, D., & Schensul, D. 2013.
Urbanisation, demographics and adaptation to climate change in Semarang, Indonesia.
Human Settlements Group, International Institute for Environment and Development.
Urbanization and emerging population issues: Working Paper 11. London:
• Murphy, B.L., 2007. Locating social capital in resilient community-level emergency
management. Natural Hazards, 41(2), pp.297-315.
• Muttarak, R. and Lutz, W., 2014. Is education a key to reducing vulnerability to natural
disasters and hence unavoidable climate change?. Ecology and Society 19(1): 42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06476-190142
• Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S. and Olsson, L., 2007. Categorising tools for
sustainability assessment. Ecological economics, 60(3), pp.498-508.
• Nelson, D.R., Adger, W.N. and Brown, K., 2007. Adaptation to environmental change:
contributions of a resilience framework. Annual review of Environment and Resources,
32, pp.395-419.
• Norris, F.H., Stevens, S.P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K.F. and Pfefferbaum, R.L., 2008.
Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster
readiness. American journal of community psychology, 41(1-2), pp.127-150.
• Noy, C., 2008. Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in
qualitative research. International Journal of social research methodology, 11(4), pp.327-
344.
• Nyong, A., Adesina, F. and Elasha, B.O., 2007. The value of indigenous knowledge in
climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel. Mitigation and
Adaptation strategies for global Change, 12(5), pp.787-797.
• Oberlack, C., 2017. Diagnosing institutional barriers and opportunities for adaptation to
climate change. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 22(5), pp.805-
838.
• O'Brien, K., Eriksen, S.E., Schjolden, A. and Nygaard, L.P., 2004. What's in a word?
Conflicting interpretations of vulnerability in climate change research. CICERO Working
Paper.
• Olatumile, A., 2013. Assessment of environmental professional awareness of climate
change: Implication for climate change education. International Education Research,
1(3), pp.38-50.
• Oliver, A. and Pearl, D.S., 2018. Rethinking sustainability frameworks in neighbourhood
projects: a process-based approach. Building Research & Information, 46(5), pp.513-527.
272
• Olmstead, S.M., Climate change adaptation and water resource management: a review
of the literature. Energy Economics, 46, pp. 500–509, 2013.
• Olsson, P., Galaz, V. and Boonstra, W.J., 2014. Sustainability transformations: a resilience
perspective. Ecology and Society 19(4):1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06799-190401
• Oppenheim, A.N., 2000. Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Ozkan, B.C., 2004. Using NVivo to analyze qualitative classroom data on constructivist
learning environments. The qualitative report, 9(4), pp.589-603.
• Ozturk, Z., Arayici, Y., Sharman, H. and Egbu, C.O., 2010. Improving communities through
knowledge intensive regeneration-Mediacity. Salford University, Salford, UK.
• Quinlan, A.E., Berbés‐Blázquez, M., Haider, L.J. and Peterson, G.D., 2016. Measuring and
assessing resilience: broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary
perspectives. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(3), pp.677-687.
• Pahl-Wostl, C., 2007. Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate
and global change. Water resources management, 21(1), pp.49-62.
• Pahl-Wostl, C., 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-
level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change,
19(3), pp.354-365.
• Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D. and Taillieu, T., 2007. Social
learning and water resources management. Ecology and society, 12(2).
• Pahl-Wostl, C., Sendzimir, J., Jeffrey, P., Aerts, J., Berkamp, G. and Cross, K., 2007.
Managing change toward adaptive water management through social learning. Ecology
and society, 12(2).
• Palmer, M.A., Lettenmaier, D.P., Poff, N.L., Postel, S.L., Richter, B. and Warner, R., 2009.
Climate change and river ecosystems: protection and adaptation options. Environmental
management, 44(6), pp.1053-1068.
• Pan, Y., Birdsey, R.A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P.E., Kurz, W.A., Phillips, O.L.,
Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S.L., Canadell, J.G. and Ciais, P., 2011. A large and persistent carbon
sink in the world’s forests. Science, p.1201609.
• Parry, M., Parry, M.L., Canziani, O., Palutikof, J., Van der Linden, P. and Hanson, C. eds.,
2007. Climate change 2007-impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Working group II
contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC (Vol. 4). Cambridge University
Press.
273
• Paton, D. and Johnston, D., 2017. Disaster resilience: an integrated approach. Springfield,
IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher.
• Pecl, G.T., Araújo, M.B., Bell, J.D., Blanchard, J., Bonebrake, T.C., Chen, I.C., Clark, T.D.,
Colwell, R.K., Danielsen, F., Evengård, B. and Falconi, L., 2017. Biodiversity redistribution
under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science,
355(6332), p.eaai9214.
• Pelling, M. and Manuel-Navarrete, D., 2011. From resilience to transformation: the
adaptive cycle in two Mexican urban centres. Ecology and Society 16(2): 11. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art11/
• Perry, H., 2013. An approach to assessing the resilience of the water service in England
and Wales–Can we answer the question: is the service resilient or brittle? (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Birmingham).
• Perrings, C. and Stern, D.I., 2000. Modelling loss of resilience in agroecosystems:
rangelands in Botswana. Environmental and Resource Economics, 16(2), pp.185-210.
• Petrescu, D., Petcou, C. and Baibarac, C., 2016. Co-producing commons-based resilience:
lessons from R-Urban. Building Research & Information, 44(7), pp.717-736.
• Pham, T.T., Campbell, B.M., Garnett, S., Aslin, H. and Hoang, M.H., 2010. Importance and
impacts of intermediary boundary organizations in facilitating payment for
environmental services in Vietnam. Environmental Conservation, 37(1), pp.64-72.
• Platts-Fowler, D. and Robinson, D., 2013. Neighbourhood resilience in sheffield: getting
by in hard times. Report for Sheffield City Council, Centre for Regional Economic and
Social Research.
• Poortinga, W., 2012. Community resilience and health: The role of bonding, bridging, and
linking aspects of social capital. Health & place, 18(2), pp.286-295.
• Preston, B. L., Yuen, E. J., & Westaway, R. M. (2011). Putting vulnerability to climate
change on the map: a review of approaches, benefits, and risks. Sustainability
Science, 6(2), 177-202.
• Reed, M.S., Fraser, E.D. and Dougill, A.J., 2006. An adaptive learning process for
developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological
economics, 59(4), pp.406-418.
• Reith, A. and Orova, M., 2015. Do green neighbourhood ratings cover sustainability?.
Ecological Indicators, 48, pp.660-672.
• Rhodes, R.A.W., 1996. The new governance: governing without government. Political
studies, 44(4), pp.652-667.
274
• Ricart, S., Olcina, J. and Rico, A., 2019. Evaluating public attitudes and farmers’ beliefs
towards climate change adaptation: Awareness, perception, and populism at European
level. Land, 8(1), p.4.
• Roberts, D., 2010. Prioritizing climate change adaptation and local level resilience in
Durban, South Africa. Environment and Urbanization, 22(2), pp.397-413.
• Rodriguez, R.S., Ürge-Vorsatz, D. and Barau, A.S., 2018. Sustainable Development Goals
and climate change adaptation in cities. Nature Climate Change, 8(3), p.181.
• Rojas Blanco, A.V., 2006. Local initiatives and adaptation to climate change. Disasters,
30(1), pp.140-147.
• Romero-Lankao, P., Bulkeley, H., Pelling, M., Burch, S., Gordon, D.J., Gupta, J., Johnson,
C., Kurian, P., Lecavalier, E., Simon, D. and Tozer, L., 2018. Urban transformative potential
in a changing climate. Nature Climate Change, 8(9), p.754.
• Roseland, M., 2012. Toward sustainable communities: Solutions for citizens and their
governments (Vol. 6). New Society Publishers. Vancouver
• Rydin, Yvonne (2012). "Using Actor-Network Theory to understand planning practice:
Exploring relationships between actants in regulating low-carbon commercial
development". Planning Theory. 12 (1): 23–45.
• Sapountzaki, K., 2007. Social resilience to environmental risks: A mechanism of
vulnerability transfer? Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal,
18(3), pp.274-297.
• Seidl, R., Rammer, W., & Lexer, M. J. 2011. Climate change vulnerability of sustainable
forest management in the Eastern Alps. Climatic Change, 106(2), 225-254.
• Schilderman, T. and Lyons, M., 2011. Resilient dwellings or resilient people? Towards
people-centred reconstruction. Environmental Hazards, 10(3-4), pp.218-231.
• Schneider, S.L., 2007, November. Measuring educational attainment in cross-national
surveys: The case of the European Social Survey. EDUC workshop of the EQUALSOC
network, Dijon.
• Schuldt, J.P. and Pearson, A.R., 2016. The role of race and ethnicity in climate change
polarization: evidence from a US national survey experiment. Climatic Change, 136(3-4),
pp.495-505.
• Schweber, L., 2013. The effect of BREEAM on clients and construction professionals.
Building Research & Information, 41(2), pp.129-145.
• Schwarz, A.M., Béné, C., Bennett, G., Boso, D., Hilly, Z., Paul, C., Posala, R., Sibiti, S. and
Andrew, N., 2011. Vulnerability and resilience of remote rural communities to shocks and
275
global changes: Empirical analysis from Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change,
21(3), pp.1128-1140.
• Scott, D., McBoyle, G., Minogue, A. and Mills, B., 2006. Climate change and the
sustainability of ski-based tourism in eastern North America: A reassessment. Journal of
sustainable tourism, 14(4), pp.376-398.
• Sharifi, A., Sustainability at the Neighborhood Level: Assessment Tools and the Pursuit of
Sustainability, Diss. Nagoya University, 2013.
• Sharifi, A. and Murayama, A., 2013. A critical review of seven selected neighbourhood
sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, pp.73-87.
• Sharifi, A. and Murayama, A., 2014. Neighbourhood sustainability assessment in action:
Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the UK, and
Japan. Building and Environment, 72, pp.243-258.
• Sharifi, A. and Yamagata, Y., 2014, March. Major principles and criteria for development
of an urban resilience assessment index. In Green Energy for Sustainable Development
(ICUE), 2014 International Conference and Utility Exhibition on (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
• Sharifi, A. and Murayama, A., 2015. Viability of using global standards for neighbourhood
sustainability assessment: insights from a comparative case study. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 58(1), pp.1-23.
• Sharifi, A. and Yamagata, Y., 2015. A conceptual framework for assessment of urban
energy resilience. Energy Procedia, 75, pp.2904-2909.
• Sharifi, A. and Yamagata, Y., 2016. Urban Resilience Assessment: Multiple Dimensions,
Criteria, and Indicators. In Urban Resilience (pp. 259-276). Springer, Cham.
• Sharifi, A. and Yamagata, Y., 2018. Resilience-Oriented Urban Planning. In Resilience-
Oriented Urban Planning (pp. 3-27). Springer, Cham.
• Shaw, A., Burch, S., Kristensen, F., Robinson, J. and Dale, A., 2014. Accelerating the
sustainability transition: Exploring synergies between adaptation and mitigation in
British Columbian communities. Global Environmental Change, 25, pp.41-51.
• Slee, S.M., Bowker, S.L., Hamilton, A. and Wilkie, T., 2010. The hive in the cliff: an
innovative case study for culturally led, cross-sector approaches to sustainable socio-
economic development.
• Simpson, M.C., 2007. An integrated approach to assess the impacts of tourism on
community development and sustainable livelihoods. Community development journal,
44(2), pp.186-208.
276
• Simonsson, L., Swartling, Å.G., André, K., Wallgren, O. and Klein, R.J., 2011. Perceptions
of risk and limits to climate change adaptation: Case studies of two Swedish urban
regions. In Climate change adaptation in developed nations (pp. 321-334). Springer,
Dordrecht.
• Singh, A.S. and Masuku, M.B., 2014. Sampling techniques & determination of sample size
in applied statistics research: An overview. International Journal of Economics,
Commerce and Management, 2(11), pp.1-22.
• Smit, B. and Pilifosova, O., 2003. Adaptation to climate change in the context of
sustainable development and equity. Sustainable Development, 8(9), p.9.
• Smit, B. and Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global
environmental change, 16(3), pp.282-292.
• Somerville, P., Van Beckhoven, E. and Van Kempen, R., 2009. The decline and rise of
neighbourhoods: The importance of neighbourhood governance. European Journal of
Housing Policy, 9(1), pp.25-44.
• Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Butler, C. and Pidgeon, N.F., 2011. Perceptions of climate
change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nature climate
change, 1(1), p.46.
• Stephenson, J., Newman, K. and Mayhew, S., 2010. Population dynamics and climate
change: what are the links?. Journal of Public Health, 32(2), pp.150-156.
• Stevenson, F., 2009. Post-occupancy evaluation and sustainability: a review. Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning, 162(3), pp.123-130.
• Stevenson, F. and Baborska-Narozny, M., 2014. Designing resilient housing for co-
evolutionary adaptivity. In Proceedings of 8th Windsor Conference: Counting the cost of
comfort in a changing world (pp. 436-445).
• Stevenson, F., Baborska-Narozny, M. and Chatterton, P., 2016. Resilience, redundancy
and low-carbon living: co-producing individual and community learning. Building
Research & Information, 44(7), pp.789-803.
• Stevenson, F. and Petrescu, D., 2016. Co-producing neighbourhood resilience. Building
Research & Information, Vol. 44, No. 7, 695–702
• Sullivan, L.J., Rydin, Y. and Buchanan, C., 2014. Neighbourhood sustainability
frameworks-a literature review.
• Swart, R., Robinson, J. and Cohen, S., 2003. Climate change and sustainable
development: expanding the options. Climate Policy, 3(sup1), pp.S19-S40.
277
• Szibbo, N.A., 2016. Assessing neighborhood livability: evidence from LEED® for
Neighborhood Development and New Urbanist Communities. Articulo-Journal of Urban
Research, (14).
• Tanner, T., Lewis, D., Wrathall, D., Bronen, R., Cradock-Henry, N., Huq, S., Lawless, C.,
Nawrotzki, R., Prasad, V., Rahman, M.A. and Alaniz, R., 2015. Livelihood resilience in the
face of climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5(1), p.23.
• Tanner, T., Mitchell, T., Polack, E. and Guenther, B., 2009. Urban governance for
adaptation: assessing CC resilience in ten Asian cities. IDS Working Papers, 2009(315),
pp.01-47.
• Taylor, A.L., Dessai, S. and de Bruin, W.B., 2014. Public perception of climate risk and
adaptation in the UK: a review of the literature. Climate Risk Management, 4, pp.1-16.
• Taylor, R.G., Scanlon, B., Döll, P., Rodell, M., Van Beek, R., Wada, Y., Longuevergne, L.,
Leblanc, M., Famiglietti, J.S., Edmunds, M. and Konikow, L., 2013. Ground water and
climate change. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), p.322.
• Termeer, C.J., Dewulf, A., Breeman, G. and Stiller, S.J., 2015. Governance capabilities for
dealing wisely with wicked problems. Administration & Society, 47(6), pp.680-710.
• Thomas, D.S. and Twyman, C., 2005. Equity and justice in climate change adaptation
amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Global environmental change, 15(2),
pp.115-124.
• Tompkins, E. and Adger, W.N., 2004. Does adaptive management of natural resources
enhance resilience to climate change?. Ecology and Society 9(2): 10.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10/
• Tompkins, E.L., Few, R. and Brown, K., 2008. Scenario-based stakeholder engagement:
incorporating stakeholders’ preferences into coastal planning for climate change. Journal
of environmental management, 88(4), pp.1580-1592.
• Tompkins, E.L. and Eakin, H., 2012. Managing private and public adaptation to climate
change. Global environmental change, 22(1), pp.3-11.
• Tribbia, J. and Moser, S.C., 2008. More than information: what coastal managers need
to plan for climate change? Environmental science & policy, 11(4), pp.315-328.
• Tschakert, P. and Dietrich, K.A., 2010. Anticipatory learning for climate change
adaptation and resilience. Ecology and society, 15(2).
• Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L.,
Eckley, N., Kasperson, J.X., Luers, A., Martello, M.L. and Polsky, C., 2003. A framework for
278
vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the national academy of
sciences, 100(14), pp.8074-8079.
• Turner Ii, B.L., 2010. Vulnerability and resilience: Coalescing or paralleling approaches for
sustainability science?. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), pp.570-576.
• Tyler, S. and Moench, M., 2012. A framework for urban climate resilience. Climate and
development, 4(4), pp.311-326.
• Uda, M., 2016. Sustainable and Resilient Neighbourhood Design (Doctoral dissertation).
• Uda, M. and Kennedy, C., 2015. A framework for analysing neighbourhood resilience.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning, 168(3),
pp.129-145.
• Uitto, J.I. and Shaw, R., 2006. Adaptation to changing climate: promoting community-
based approaches in the developing countries.
• Urwin, K. and Jordan, A., 2008. Does public policy support or undermine climate change
adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Global
environmental change, 18(1), pp.180-191.
• Van Aalst, M.K., Cannon, T. and Burton, I., 2008. Community level adaptation to climate
change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Global
environmental change, 18(1), pp.165-179.
• Vella, K., Dale, A., Cottrell, A. and Gooch, M., 2012. Assessing community resilience to
climate change. In:12 International Coral Reef Symposium. Cairns, p.5.
• Vignola, R., Locatelli, B., Martinez, C. and Imbach, P., 2009. Ecosystem-based adaptation
to climate change: what role for policy-makers, society and scientists? Mitigation and
adaptation strategies for global change, 14(8), p.691.
• Vincent, K., 2007. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the importance of scale. Global
Environmental Change, 17(1), pp.12-24.
• Viscusi, W.K. and Hersch, J., 2005. The Generational Divide in Support for Climate Change
Policies: European Evidence. Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper, (504).
• Vogel, C., Moser, S. C., Kasperson, R. E., & Dabelko, G. D. 2007. Linking vulnerability,
adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and
partnerships. Global environmental change, 17(3), 349-364.
• Vörösmarty, C.J., Green, P., Salisbury, J. and Lammers, R.B., 2000. Global water
resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science, 289(5477),
pp.284-288.
279
• Wall, E. and Smit, B., 2005. Climate change adaptation in light of sustainable agriculture.
Journal of sustainable agriculture, 27(1), pp.113-123.
• Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., Lebel, L.,
Norberg, J., Peterson, G.D. and Pritchard, R., 2002. Resilience management in social-
ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation
ecology, 6(1).
• Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R. and Kinzig, A., 2004. Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5
• Wamsler, C., Brink, E. and Rantala, O., 2012. Climate change, adaptation, and formal
education: the role of schooling for increasing societies' adaptive capacities in El Salvador
and Brazil. Ecology and Society, 17(2).
• Welsh, E., 2002, May. Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis
process. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol.
3, No. 2).
• Westman, L., 2017. Top-Down, Bottom-Up and Beyond: Governance Perspectives on
Urban Resilience and Environmental Justice in the People’s Republic of China. In
Environmental Justice and Urban Resilience in the Global South (pp. 17-35). Palgrave
Macmillan, New York.
• White, G.F., 2000. The hidden costs of coastal hazards: Implications for risk assessment
and mitigation. Island Press. H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, the
Environment. Panel on Risk, the True Costs of Coastal Hazards, 2000. The hidden costs of
coastal hazards: Implications for risk assessment and mitigation. Island Press.
• Wilder, M., Scott, C.A., Pablos, N.P., Varady, R.G., Garfin, G.M. and McEvoy, J., 2010.
Adapting across boundaries: climate change, social learning, and resilience in the US–
Mexico border region. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(4),
pp.917-928.
• Williams, S.E., Shoo, L.P., Isaac, J.L., Hoffmann, A.A. and Langham, G., 2008. Towards an
integrated framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change. PLoS
biology, 6(12), p.e325.
• Winner, L. (1993). "Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social
Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology Science, Technology, & Human Values"
(Vol. 18, pp. 362-378).
280
• Wisdom, J. and Creswell, J.W., 2013. Mixed methods: integrating quantitative and
qualitative data collection and analysis while studying patient-centered medical home
models. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
• Yaneva, Albena (2009). "Making the Social Hold: Towards an Actor-Network Theory of
Design". Design and Culture. 1 (3).
• Yigitcanlar, T. and Dur, F., 2010. Developing a sustainability assessment model: The
sustainable infrastructure, land-use, environment and transport model. Sustainability,
2(1), pp.321-340.
• Yin, R.K., 1999. Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health
services research, 34(5 Pt 2), p.1209.
• Zainal, Z., 2007. Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, (9), pp.1-6.
• Zautra, A., Hall, J. and Murray, K., 2008. Community development and community
resilience: An integrative approach. Community Development, 39(3), pp.130-147.
• Zheng, H.; Shen, G.; Sun, Y.; Hong, J. Neighborhood sustainability in urban renewal: An
assessment framework. Environ. Plan. B 2017, 44, 903–924
• Zheng, H.W., Shen, G.Q., Song, Y., Sun, B. and Hong, J., 2017. Neighborhood sustainability
in urban renewal: An assessment framework. Environment and Planning B: Urban
Analytics and City Science, 44(5), pp.903-924.
281
Websites
• (http://www.breeam.com/communities)
• (http://www.breeam.com/communities)
• (http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/pdf/Brochures/The_case_for_BREEAM_Communiti
es.pdf
• (http://www.wsp-pb.com/Globaln/UK/WSPPB%20Biodiversity%20whitepaper.pdf )
• (http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/brochure/SDGs_Booklet_
Web_En.pdf)
• (http://www.mediacityuk.co.uk/space/sustainability)
• (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1476319&page=2 )
• (www.mediacityuk.co.uk)
• (www.mediacityuk.co.uk )
• (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/MediaCityUK_aerial_view_Ap
ril_2011.jpg)
• (http://www.jtp.co.uk/projects/urridaholt).
• (http://www.jtp.co.uk/projects/urridaholt)
• (http://www.breeam.com/case-study-urridaholt-gardabaer-iceland)
• (http://www.breeam.com/case-study-urridaholt-gardabaer-iceland)
• (http://www.jtp.co.uk/cms/pdfs/Urridaholt.pdf).
• (http://www.breeam.com/case-study-urridaholt-gardabaer-iceland).
• (http://www.jtp.co.uk/projects/urridaholt)
282
Appendix
Appendix A
Initial Interviews
Points from the interview with BRE director are:-
Governance & role of Local authority:
When it comes to the engagement of the local authority, for instance with local planning
authority, the connection with the sustainability stakeholders is happening as a separate
process in linkage with the community participation. That the local planning authority would
have to make sure that the community engagement is proportional, yet still not as detailed
and prescribed process. For BREEAM COMMUNITIES team, there is information on the link
between the authority and the developer, but no information on the link between the local
authority and community engagement process.
Understanding and the inclusion of climate change impacts:
In relation to adaptation to climate change issue, for BREEAM COMMUNITIES, this considers
as a part of the story, in line with other issues. So, the planners’ authority are having the main
role in dealing with this adaptation process based on reports from local government
association and other local studies from other departments such as housing. However, the
climate change considers as important matter, in dealing with different development
context, new community development, re-use and refurbishment. The adaptation plans are
imbedded with other categories or indicators of BREEAM COMMUNITIES, there is no need to
name them as climate adaptation indicators. And in linkage to adaptation to climate change,
it can be found that in BREEAM COMMUNITIES, issues as infrastructure, density, urban heat,
…etc. are all be treated with a way that can adopt climate adaptation principles. However,
making all the required indicators that associate with climate change adaptation as
mandatory indicators will cause to push the developer away. Because the developer will find
the tool as too complicated or too expensive .And the aim of the tool design to make as
flexible as possible. Moreover, other issues as health, economic crisis and others are found
to me important to consider in some decisions context more than climate change if we can
say this.
283
Also, one important point should be mentioned is that in the context of the need to really
deep evaluation process and in cases of climate sensitive projects, may be the need will be
here to adopt a more sophisticated tools to face the adaptation challenges. Because, in the
context of BREEAM COMMUNITIES, if there are available information on the location of the
development, this will change the assessment process and the rating issue as well.
So, BREEAM COMMUNITIES can be of value to climate change adaptation, but yet there is
still no available other tools for climate change adaptation that existed to be integrated with
it, or others. Maybe in the US, there is more familiarity with the existence of other tools for
climate change adaptation.
In regards to the context of Media City project, and with regarding to its scale, there is
definitely no adaptation plan for these projects, but it’s directed to whole Salford city.
Finally, it should be said, that there is still no enough recourses to make BREEAM
COMMUNITIES cover the various climate areas in the same country or others in regarding to
the climate impacts of that area and how to adapt to it with an accurate way. It is still needs
a work on this issue, particularly regarding the linking the assessment process with the
geographical areas and their impacts with organized and accurate process.
• Learning and education: There is still no potentials that available to consider teach people or making them more
aware about their environment. However, there is a question if BREEAM COMMUNITIES
involvement process can be as learning process for the various participants. But, when it
comes to the local community education or learning, this is not a part of the tool agenda.
And if some of the local community is having strong opinions about the environment based
on their knowledge on the environment, they can campaign against the developer.
Long-term management:
Mainly for the water issues, the focus is not only on the water supply, but on other issues,
however it is not clear why the focus on wastewater management is less than others, but
sometimes this belongs to the paced regulation of the UK or the UK scheme and felt no
additions are needed. While in the case of adopting BREEAM COMMUNITIES internationally,
this will be done through bespoke process. But, with LEED-ND this issue can be lighter as each
284
state has its own regulation, and generally these regulations are lighter than the existed
regulation in the European countries’ context.
For community management of facilities, it’s not a required issue, it’s optional. There is a
need to study the BREEAM COMMUNITIES development and search the problems that
happen after the delivery. Usually the developers are the one who ask if there is a need to
post occupancy reports. But usually monitoring is not a required issue. But maybe for some
countries, it’s the local authority to have a longer relationship with the occupants to evaluate
the performance of the development or the buildings. But this is unusual process.
In England, annual monitoring has been implemented or considered until 2010, but this
issue has been cancelled recently. So, no monitoring is required, but is not happening.
• Local community participation:
Regarding the community participation, this issue is regarded as a very important issue in
BREEAM COMMUNITIES, and in the training courses of this tool, community consultation,
engagement and management as can be seen in the tool’s manual are essential for the
application of this tool. However, in practice the application of these three categories is
depending on the circumstances of each development. The importance of the community
participation lies in the significance of the local community role and their knowledge of the
place more than the designers, developers and consultants.
In Media City, the use of BREEAM COMMUNITIES was in addressing whether if the developers
have achieved the requirements that were/ are mentioned in BREEAM COMMUNITIES pilot
to get the certification.
Further, design team consultants should follow the practice of community engagement,
which BREEAM COMMUNITIES is not who invents this issue, but there are community
organisations which can decide the community engagement issues and what is better for
them. Yet, planners, designers and consultants teams should hold workshops to make the
community as part of the consultation phases, and it is important for them to access the
various community groups and to talk to them about the used measures in the development,
and how these measure can be fitted.
285
But, as in the real life and in practice, the planning process is a democratic process, and the
people involvement is happening through formal planning sessions or through elected
representatives. So, the challenges id still difficult in making the development process as
bottom-up process. Also, the economic makes these challenges to lead this case.
Therefore, the context is not as what is happening in some European countries, that the local
communities is saying what their needs is in the development process or if they have a choice
in picking the developers.
Development stages and sustainability assessment process: BC as an Iintermediary
party
The role of the BC actors is as intermediary party between the developer and the local
authority, in relation to BREEAM COMMUNITIES, especially that the assessors are
independent party, and still needs proof from the local authority and also from the
developer.
Also as the assessors are independent people, it’s not their responsibility to be in direct
contact with local community during the decision making process. The people that can deal
with local community are either engagement consultants or they are developer’s employee.
Sometimes, the developers can hire consultations or specialists that can do the design,
engineering, engagement issues, and all other needed surveys for the development. For the
various stages as design, implementation and facilities management, climate change is a
factors or issue among other things, because BREEAM COMMUNITIES is a broad method, and
it covers poverty, health, security and other issues.
Sustainability advisor & energy consultant/ Media City few points:
In Media City, sustainable design approach pushed design beyond 'normal' levels,
• BREEAM COMMUNITIES is considered ‘Quite Good’ as a mean of adaptation to climate
change, however it still needs to avoid being too specific and encourage strategic approaches
• Media City/UK is an exemplar of BREEAM Communities as it has embodied BREEAM
principles from the outset - to achieve a truly leading-edge modern low carbon and
environmentally friendly city,
286
• It has mentioned that the use of the BREEAM Communities assessment system in Media
City was a very useful tool which helped direct the design team and developer toward all of
the key issues resulting in an excellent outcome for the community as a whole.
• The consultation and the engagement of the local community in the decision making
process was so important and vital for the development.
• For long term risks assessment, an absolute requirement for developers to undertake a long
term flood risk assessment as a basic compliance item and implementation of recommended
measures is required (just to pass).
• BREEAM Communities, or equivalent targets for developments, is actually enforced, and
monitored afterwards, the majority of developers will only ever pay lip service.
287
Appendix B
1. Ethics Approval & Questionnaire
WELSH SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE ETHICS APPROVAL FORM FOR STAFF AND PHD/MPHIL PROJECTS
Tick one box: STAFF √ PHD/MPHIL
Title of project:
Using BREEAM COMMUNITIES assessment tool to explore the ways of enhancing adaptation to climate change in the neighbourhood development process.
Name of researcher(s): Sally Naji
Name of principal investigator
Dr. Julie Gwilliam Dr. Joanne Paterson
Contact e-mail address: [email protected]
Date: 10/10/2016
Participants YES NO N/A
Does the research involve participants from any of the following groups?
• Children (under 16 years of age) √
• People with learning difficulties √
• Patients (NHS approval is required) √
• People in custody √
• People engaged in illegal activities √
• Vulnerable elderly people √
• Any other vulnerable group not listed here √
• When working with children: I have read the Interim Guidance for Researchers Working with Children and Young People (http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/archi/ethics_committee.php)
Consent Procedure YES NO N/A
• Will you describe the research process to participants in advance, so that they are informed about what to expect?
√
• Will you tell participants that their participation is voluntary? √
• Will you tell participants that they may withdraw from the research at any time and for any reason?
√
• Will you obtain valid consent from participants? (specify how consent will be obtained in Box A)6
√
• Will you give participants the option of omitting questions they do not want to answer?
√
• If the research is observational, will you ask participants for their consent to being observed?
√
• If the research involves photography or other audio-visual recording, will you ask participants for their consent to being photographed / recorded and for its use/publication?
√
Possible Harm to Participants YES NO N/A
• Is there any realistic risk of any participants experiencing either physical or psychological distress or discomfort?
√
• Is there any realistic risk of any participants experience a detriment to their interests as a result of participation?
√
Data Protection YES NO N/A
6 If any non-anonymous and/or personalised data be generated or stored, written consent is required.
288
• Will any non-anonymous and/or personalised data be generated or stored? √
• If the research involves non-anonymous and/or personalised data, will you:
• gain written consent from the participants
√
• allow the participants the option of anonymity for all or part of the information they provide
√
Health and Safety YES
Does the research meet the requirements of the University’s Health & Safety policies? (http://www.cf.ac.uk/osheu/index.html)
√
Research Governance YES NO N/A
Does your study include the use of a drug? You need to contact Research Governance before submission ([email protected] )
√
Does the study involve the collection or use of human tissue? You need to contact the Human Tissue Act team before submission ([email protected])
√
Box A The Project (provide all the information listed below in a separate attachment)
1. Consent and participation information arrangements - please attached consent forms if
they are to be used The proposed study doesn’t represent a real risk to the participant whether to professionals or the local
community. The questionnaire only constitutes points that are associated with getting information on
understanding climate change impacts in the selected case study, and associated adaptation activities and
policies. The research mainly aims to understand the perceptions and attitudes of various professionals and local
community towards the adaptation to climate change in the sustainability context. This issue will be investigated in
in the physical (water facilities and services) and social (people perceptions and attitudes towards the adaptation)
context. So, there will be no sensitive data required from the participants’ that might affect the participants’
psychological conditions, and cause any kind of anxiety or depression. Further, the information in the questions
are direct and will mislead the participant. It should be mentioned that the emails have been sent to the potential
professionals and they agreed to participate.
For more information on the questionnaire, I have attached with this document the Professionals questionnaire to
further illustrate the questions nature.
Signed: Sally Naji
Date: 10/10/2016
2. A clear and concise statement of the ethical considerations raised by the project and how is dealt with them The personal information provided from the professionals or local community such as their names,
address…etc. will not be used in the research for any reason.
3. Estimated start date and duration of project
I’m planning to send the questionnaire straightway after getting the approval from the School Research Ethics Committee.
All information must be submitted along with this form to the School Research Ethics Committee for consideration
289
esearcher’s declaration (tick as appropriate)
• I consider this project to have negligible ethical implications (can only be used if none of the grey areas of the checklist have been ticked). √
• I consider this project research to have some ethical implications.
• I consider this project to have significant ethical implications
Signature Sally
Name Sally Naji
Date 10/10/2016
Researcher or MPhil/PhD student
Signature Name
Date
Lead investigator or supervisor
Advice from the School Research Ethics Committee
STATEMENT OF ETHICAL APPROVAL
This project had been considered using agreed Departmental procedures and is now approved
Signature Name Date
Chair, School Research Ethics Committee
Dear Sir/Madam, I hope you are doing well. My name is Sally Naji and I’m a third year PhD student in the Welsh School of Architecture. My PhD topic is entitled ‘‘Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment Tools and Their Use in Building Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change’’. The aim of this study is to better understand how the assessment tools- in particular BREEAM Communities tool as a chosen case study- has influenced the neighbourhood development with respects to adaptation to climate change. To understand how the BREEAM Communities tool influences neighbourhood development it is important to receive feedback from different professionals involved in the planning, development and those living. The questionnaire aims to understand the perceptions and attitudes of various professionals towards the adaptation to climate change in the sustainability context.
Dr. Julie Gwilliam
Dr. Jo Patterson
290
We hope that you help with this research by filling the questionnaire which will be send to you after your agreement to participate. The questionnaire will take about 15-20 minutes of your time. Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary and you can withdraw from the study at any time. If you would like to receive the results of the survey you can write down your contact information at the end of the questionnaire. This information that you provide will be totally confidential and will not be shared with other parties or used for other purposes other than this research. The survey has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Welsh School of Architecture (reference number) Thank you very much in advance for your help. Sally Naji Welsh School of Architecture Cardiff University Bute Building, King Edward VII Avenue Cardiff, Wales, CF10 3NB Email: xxxxxxxxx
291
2. Experts Questionnaire
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
Appendix C
Results / Questionnaire
Q: 7)
Options N Mean Temperature Changes effects 13 0.38
Precipitation Changes effects 13 0.54
Sea Level Rise effects 13 0.38
Extreme Weather events 13 0.77
Flood Risks effects 13 0.54
Drought Risks effects 13 0.54
Valid N (listwise) 13
Participants
Temperature Changes effects
Precipitation Changes effects
Sea Level Rise effects
Extreme Weather events
Flood Risks effects
Drought Risks effects
Architect Mean 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
N 2 2 2 2 2 2
Assessor Mean 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
N 3 3 3 3 3 3
Urban Planner Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
N 1 1 1 1 1 1
Developer/Manager
Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
N 2 2 2 2 2 2
Professional Engineer
Mean 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
N 2 2 2 2 2 2
Water Engineer Mean 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.50
N 2 2 2 2 2 2
City Councillor Mean 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
N 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total Mean 0.38 0.54 0.38 0.77 0.54 0.54
N 13 13 13 13 13 13
Q: 8)
Options N Mean
Temperature Changes _Water Infrastructure 13 2.46
Precipitation Changes _ Water Infrastructure 13 2.92
301
Sea Level Rise 12 2.42
Extreme Weather Events_ Water Infrastructure 13 3.31
Flood Risks _Water Infrastructure 13 3.31
Drought Risks _ Water Infrastructure 13 2.85
Valid N (listwise) 12
Q:9)
Descriptive Statistics point N Mean Std. Deviation
Importance of CCA_ Community Scale
13 4.00 0.913
Valid N (listwise) 13
Participants Mean N
Architect 3.50 2
Assessor 4.67 3
Urban Planner 5.00 1
Developer/Manager 5.00 2
Professional Engineer 3.50 2
Water Engineer 3.00 2
City Councillor 3.00 1
Total 4.00 13
Q: 10)
Descriptive Statistics
Options N Mean
A Municipal Government _ CCA 13 0.69
B Non-Government Organisations _CCA 13 0.23
C CC Institutions _CCA 13 0.15
302
D Sustainability Assessment Tools_ CCA 13 0.08
E Academic Organisations_ CCA 13 0.38
Valid N (listwise) 13
Q: 11)
N Mean A Integration_ CCI_WRM 13 0.62
B Collaboration_ Sectors 13 0.38
C Improved Research_ CCA 13 0.15
D Community Participation 13 0.08
E Sustainability Assessment Tools 13 0.38
Valid N (listwise) 13
Participants Municipal Government _ CCA
Non-Government Organisations _CCA
CC Institutions _CCA
Sustainability Assessment Tools_ CCA
Academic Organisations_ CCA
Architect Mean 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N 2 2 2 2 2
Assessor Mean 1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00
N 3 3 3 3 3
Urban Planner
Mean 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
N 1 1 1 1 1
Developer/ Manager
Mean 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00
N 2 2 2 2 2
Professional Engineer
Mean 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50
N 2 2 2 2 2
Water Engineer
Mean 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N 2 2 2 2 2
City Councillor
Mean 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N 1 1 1 1 1
Total Mean 0.69 0.23 0.15 0.08 0.38
N 13 13 13 13 13
Q: 16)
Descriptive Statistics
Options N Mean
A BC _Objectives of Adaptation 13 0.08
B BC _ Resilience targets 13 0.38
C BC_ Existing indicators 13 0.08
D BC_ Data availability & quality 13 0.15
E BC_ Accuracy Level 13 0.15
F BC_ Short & Long term _ Planning 13 0.31
303
Q: 17)
Options N Mean A Government Agencies _CC 13 0.38
B Non -Governmental organisations _CC 13 0.31
C International Organisations _CC 13 0.00
D Climate change institutions _CC 13 0.15
E BC _CC 13 0.23
Valid N (listwise) 13
Participants Government Agencies _CC
Non-Governmental organisations _CC
International Organisations
_CC
Climate change institutions _CC
BC _CC
Architect Mean 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50
N 2 2 2 2 2
Assessor Mean 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.00
N 3 3 3 3 3
Urban Planner
Mean 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N 1 1 1 1 1
Developer/Manager
Mean 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50
N 2 2 2 2 2
Professional Engineer
Mean 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N 2 2 2 2 2
Water Engineer
Mean 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00
N 2 2 2 2 2
City Councillor
Mean 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
N 1 1 1 1 1
Total Mean 0.38 0.31 0.00 0.15 0.23
N 13 13 13 13 13
Q: 26)
Options N Mean A BC _Experts Identification_ Responsibility 13 3.31
B BC _Experts Collaboration 13 3.15
C BC_ Experts & Local Community Connection 13 3.00
D BC_ Information Availability_ Actors 13 3.15
E BC _ Openness_ Discussions 13 2.92
Valid N (listwise) 13
Participants
BC _Experts Identification_ Responsibility
BC _Experts Collaboration
BC _ Experts & Local Community Connection
BC_ Information Availability_ actors
BC _ Openness_ Discussions
Architect Mean 4.50 4.50 4.00 4.00 4.00
304
N 2 2 2 2 2
Assessor Mean 2.67 2.33 2.67 2.67 2.33
N 3 3 3 3 3
Urban Planner
Mean 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N 1 1 1 1 1
Developer/Manager
Mean 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.00 3.50
N 2 2 2 2 2
Professional Engineer
Mean 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
N 2 2 2 2 2
Water Engineer
Mean 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 4.00
N 2 2 2 2 2
City Councillor
Mean 3.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 2.00
N 1 1 1 1 1
Total Mean 3.31 3.15 3.00 3.15 2.92
N 13 13 13 13 13
Q: 27)
Options N Mean
A Preparation _Water Supply_ Management 13 3.08
B Sewerage Utilities_ Maintenance 13 3.23
C Focus_ Risks Assessment_ Indicators 13 3.46
D Focus_ Water Risks_ Human Health_ Indicators 13 3.15
E Flood Management_ Linkage_ CC projection 13 3.23
Valid N (listwise) 13
Participants Preparation _Water Supply_ Management
Sewerage Utilities_ Maintenance
Focus_ Risks Assessment Indicators
Focus_ Water Risks_ Human Health_ Indicators
Flood Management_ Linkage_ CC
Architect Mean 4.50 4.50 5.00 4.00 4.00
N 2 2 2 2 2
Assessor Mean 1.67 1.67 2.33 1.67 2.67
N 3 3 3 3 3
Urban
Planner
Mean 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N 1 1 1 1 1
Developer/M
anager
Mean 3.00 4.00 4.50 4.50 3.50
N 2 2 2 2 2
Professional
Engineer
Mean 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
N 2 2 2 2 2
305
Water
Engineer
Mean 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.50
N 2 2 2 2 2
City
Councillor
Mean 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
N 1 1 1 1 1
Total Mean 3.08 3.23 3.46 3.15 3.23
N 13 13 13 13 13
Q: 29)
Descriptive Statistics
Options N Mean
A Diverse Strategies_ Flexibility_ Water Supply 12 1.25
B Water Harvesting_ Water Supply 12 1.25
C Efficiency_ Waste water Plan 12 1.75
D Efficiency_ Wastewater_ Reclamation 12 1.50
E Efficiency_ Facilities_ Sanitation 12 1.58
F Vital_ Ecology Strategy_ Mechanisms 12 1.58
Valid N (listwise) 12
Participants
Diverse Strategies_ Flexibility_ Water Supply
Water Harvesting_ Water Supply
Efficiency_ Waste water Plan
Efficiency_ Wastewater_ Reclamation
Efficiency _ Facilities_ Sanitation
Vital_ Ecology Strategy_ Mechanisms
Architect Mean 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
N 2 2 2 2 2 2
Assessor Mean 1.33 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
N 3 3 3 3 3 3
Urban
Planner
Mean 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
N 1 1 1 1 1 1
Developer/
Manager
Mean 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.00
N 2 2 2 2 2 2
Profession
al Engineer
Mean 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00
N 1 1 1 1 1 1
Water
Engineer
Mean 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N 2 2 2 2 2 2
City
Councillor
Mean 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00
N 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total Mean 1.25 1.25 1.75 1.50 1.58 1.58
N 12 12 12 12 12 12
306
Q: 30)
Options N Mean
A BC_ Organising_ Meetings_ Experts 7 2.29
B BC_ Feedback_ Local Community_ Experts 8 1.88
C BC_ Training_ Experts 6 1.83
D BC _ Continuous_ Evaluation & Monitoring 6 1.83
E BC _ Monitoring _Actors Communication 7 2.14
F BC _ Educational_ Participation 7 2.14
Valid N (listwise) 6
Participants BC_ Organising Meetings_ Experts
BC_ Feedback_ Local Community Experts
BC_ Training_ Experts
BC _ Continuous_ Evaluation & Monitoring
BC _ Monitoring _Actors Communication
BC Educational Participation
Architect Mean 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
N 2 2 2 2 2 2
Assessor Mean 3.00 2.50 1.00 1.00 2.50 2.50
N 2 2 1 1 2 2
Developer/
Manager
Mean 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
N 2 2 2 2 2 2
Profession
al Engineer
Mean 0.00
N 1
City
Councillor
Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
N 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total Mean 2.29 1.88 1.83 1.83 2.14 2.14
N 7 8 6 6 7 7
Q: 33)
307
Options N Mean
A Responsibility_ Water Use 11 1.36
B Local Community_ Collaborative thinking_ CC
11 0.64
C Easy Use & Efficient Delivery_ Fixtures_ Occupants
10 1.20
D Long Term_ Efficiency_ Water Fixtures
10 1.30
E Enhancement_ Health Surveillance 11 1.64
F Enhancement_ Technical Support_ Water Facilities
11 1.64
G Sufficiency _ Water Quality 11 1.55
Valid N (listwise) 10
Participants Responsibility _Water Use
Local Community_ Collaborative thinking
Sufficiency _ Water Quality
Enhancement_ Health Surveillance
Enhancement_ Technical Support_ Water Facilities
Easy Use & Efficient Delivery_ Fixtures_ Occupants
Long Term_ Efficiency_ Water Fixtures
Architect Mean 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
N 1 1 2 1 2.00 1 1
Assessor Mean 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.33 0.33 0.67
N 3 3 3 3 1.33 3 3
Urban Planner
Mean 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.155 0.00 0.00
N 1 1 1 1 0.00 1 1
Developer/Manager
Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
N 2 2 2 2 1.00 2 2
Professional Engineer
Mean 2.00 1.00
N 1 1
Water Engineer
Mean 2.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
City Councillor
Mean 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total Mean 1.36 0.64 1.55 1.64 1.64 1.20 1.30
N 11 11 11 11 11 10 10
Q: 34)
308
Options Mean Std. Total responses
No.
Do not Know
A Long term Information 1.2 1.5 13 8
B Local Community_ Information Accessibility 1.6 1.6 13 8
C Health Surveillance & Monitoring_ Indicators 1.4 1.6 13 8
D Monitoring reports _ Occupancy stage 1.6 1.7 13 8
309
Appendix D
Focus groups contents: Questions
• Sense of community
The expression of sense of community refers here to main feelings that the
community individuals have towards their built environment and towards each
other.
• Community knowledge & awareness
“Community knowledge & awareness” in the context of this study refers to issues
that associate with how/to what extent the local communities are aware of
sustainability principles and their built environment.
• Community empowerment & participation
Community participation and empowerment are important and interconnected
concepts in developing a sustainable community. It addresses how/ what extent
the local community are able/willing to participate in the design plan, development
projects, and programs to influence the sustainable development and resources
management.
• Community well-being and quality of life
The feeling of well-being is considered as a result of the quality of life
characteristics that are existed in both community and the built environment,
regarding life satisfaction, health and well-being life conditions.
• Post occupancy and Community management of facilities
The investigation in this point includes the experiences of community on their daily
life regarding the performance of facilities and buildings strategies.
Contents: Questions
CATEGORY ONE: SENSE OF COMMUNITY
1.1 Is there a ‘Sense of Community’ in Media City?
310
A. What does that manifest itself as? What happens that brings the community
together?
B. What positive action is there to prompt a sense of community/ advantages?
C. What is there about this project / area that is a barrier to an emerging sense of
community/Negative/ challenges
CATEGORY TWO: COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE & AWARENESS
1.1 The media city was developed along environmentally sustainable principles in
particular this aimed to reduce its environmental impact.
To what extent are you aware of these principles and aspects of this project? Did
they attract you to this area?
1.2 What is your understanding of the likely impacts of climate change in this area?
Prompt: As a part of this project, has this influenced your knowledge about
climate change?
Supplementary Question:
Is information ‘available’ and ‘accessible’ in Media City about sustainability, climate
change and adaptation to climate change?
CATEGORY THREE: COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT & PARTCIPATION
1.1 When community members co-operate together and constantly feed their natural
resource observations, knowledge about their built environment and about their
personal/ social ideas and needs to the decision makers, this will enable
communities to have a greater ‘voice’ and ‘responsibility’ in municipal and national
decision-making process.
What do you think of ‘Community participation’ issue in Media City?
How important is the role of local community participation in deciding, implementing
the development programs and in addressing the environmental sustainable
strategies?
If possible, can you share with us some of your knowledge and experiences?
311
1.2 To what extent do you think that the local community is ‘empowered’ to
act/participate in the decision making process of Media City? For instance,
regarding the inclusion of the marginalised people in the decision making process?
Please, can you share with us some of your knowledge and experiences? For
instance, regarding the role of Salford City council, or other local organisations in
encouraging the community participation?
Supplementary question:
In your opinion, how can/could the ‘Community empowerment & participation’
issues be further addressed/enhanced in Media City?
CATEGORY FOUR: COMMUNITY WELL-BEING & QUALITY OF LIFE
1.1 There are various positive aspects of well-being regarding the sustainable resources
management in built environment of Media City project. How satisfied are you with
current usage of water facilities, and with the availability/ protection of water
quantity and quality in your area?
1.2 In terms of social well-being aspects, could you please identify how satisfied are
you with your personal well-being, social interaction, and emotional well-being in
your daily life experiences in Media City area?
Supplementary question:
What are your concerns about aspects of well-being and quality of life in relation to
predicted impacts of climate change and flood risks?
CATEGORY FIVE: POST OCCUPANCY & COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF FACILITIES
1.1 As mentioned, that in Media City, the adoption of sustainable facilities and fixtures
is essential in the achievement of sustainable management of the water resources
and adaptation to climate change.
Does this influence your adaptive behaviour and make you more responsible?
312
1.2 What do you think of the current available management approaches for the water
resources in the post-occupancy stage, regarding the availability of the support
from the local agencies, monitoring, technical advice, and the performance of the
water facilities for the risks times, involving feedback from the building occupants,
through questionnaires, interviews and workshops,….etc.?
What do you think of the roles of Salford City council and local community
organisations in ‘directing’ and ‘supporting’ the community management of
facilities in the short term and long term?
Supplementary question:
What are your concerns post occupancy and community management in relation to
future impacts of climate change and flood risks? And how do you think it can be
enhanced?
Appendix E
Focus groups results & Analysis
313
• Focus group respondents Respondents Age Gender Nationality Educational
specialization Education level
Employee 1 18 Female British Student Level 5
Employee 2 33 Male British Philosophy, Politics & Economics
Level 7
Employee 3 55 Female British Technology/Diploma Level 5
Employee 4 35 Female British - Level 5
Employee 5 - Occupant 12
34 Male British Business Studies Level 6
Employee 6 50 Female British - Level 7
Employee 7- Occupant 11
44 Male British Literature Level 6
Occupant 1 61 Male British Dental Surgery Level 7
Occupant 10 30 Female Saudi PhD student – Biology science
Level 7
Occupant 2 49 Female Spanish - Level 7
Occupant 3 35 Male Hungarian Information Technology Level 7
Occupant 4 31 Female Hungarian Law Level 6
Occupant 5 32 Female British Information Technology Level 6
Occupant 6 38 Male British Business Level 7
Occupant 7 36 Male Iraqi PhD student- Computer Engineering
Level 7
Occupant 8 61 Male British Chemical Engineering/ Business
Level 7
Occupant 9 33 Male Lithuanian PhD Student- Electronic Engineering
Level 7
Student 1 18 Male British Student Level 5
Student 2 19 Male British Student Level 5
Student 3 22 Male British Student Level 5
Student 4 25 Female French Student Level 5
Student 5 18 Male British Student Level 5
Student 6 - Employee 8
20 Male British Student Level 5
314
315
Participants
Question 1: What is your general experience of the Media City project?
Question 2: Is there a ‘Sense of Community’ in Media City?
Question 3: A. What positive action are you aware of that encourages a sense of community/ advantages?
Question 4 : C. What is there about Media City that is a barrier to an emerging sense of community?
Question 5: Do you think that there is something should be done to enhance the sense of community in MediaCity?
Question 7:To what extent do you know or/ What is your understanding of the sustainability aspects of MediaCity project/ And did they attract to this area?
Question 8: As a result of living in Media City, has your knowledge about climate change changed? And what is your undestanding about climate change issue?
Question 8: Is information ‘available’ and ‘accessible’ in Media City about sustainability, climate change and adaptation to climate change?
Participant-1 Employee 3 Its attractive place. Working here is Good.
Despite many things and activities here, but for the sense of community, we can say NO, and that really touching.
The square is very nice in the summer and everyone comes out, and walk in the gardens, which this make the project really special. owever, this is not the case in winter. It’s a ‘Summer Place’.
this site is complicated, and it gathers the media people, students, which they are busy all the time. The people of the BBC thinks that the place is ‘Cold’ and ‘Soulless’. People are coming and going and that’s a challenges to create community environment here.
There should be things done here to enhance the sense of community, to aim for, outside the entertainment side.
As being a BBC member, I got the update about what is happening in this place and about PEEL group. I do know about the local residents.
No, It’s a very much ‘seasonal’ place and controlled by season. In the summer, it’s really nice place not like winter.
For sustainability, the developers are good on the recycling side, for the environmental part. That for the BBC, they told to do the recycling, for the bottles, cups, food, and it’s expected that the shops are told the same. Finally, PEEL will tell you what they need you to know.
316
Participant-2
Employee 7- Occupant 11
Attractive. Yes, in general it is a very pleasant place to live. The high rise buildings are generally attractive
No, I live here but am not really aware of any real community events apart from those that take place within my small community area, which is in Salford Quays but just outside Media City. I have made have come through walking my dog but would not have happened otherwise.
I think the fact that there are so many workers and so many visitors there’s always a state of flux and you don’t know who lives here.
But are there are newsletters promoting events or groups??
We have recycling bins at the BBC, where I work, and we also have lights that go off if there’s nobody in, but I would expect some kind of sustainable principles in new buildings. They didn’t really attract me to the area although it’s nice to have a clean, new building to work in – far better than the old heap we had in London!
I wouldn’t say my knowledge has changed – I get all my information from newspapers, websites and TV news.
There’s probably info on social media outlets and on the Peel Group’s Media City website, but I tend to ignore these. But, I’m not sure that the information is that readily available around Media City.
Participant-3 Student 4
I think MediaCity is an expensive city or place No
In the university we know each other well, and that’s also nice, like in a way we have our own community sometimes.
I feel separated from the students of the campus, that they are called the ‘MediaCity Students’. We feel here more isolated.
there is still a feeling of needing to mix with other students communities.
I know that regarding the energy, thereare good attempt to save the energy particularly the lighting in university building.
Participant-4 Employee 1
Its attractive place. is its really ‘Safe’ place to live, in comparison with Manchester city.
No
I feel this issue is important because of the location of MediaCity.
There is a feeling of the isolation of MediaCity with the Salford city, that less than a mile from MediaCity, and you can see the difference.
In that sense of the isolation from whole Salford, I feel they should be more together.
we do not feel the directors or mangers of PEEL, are encouraging on knowing information on climate change
they are promoting climate change very little. In terms of sustainability, there is a more focus on this issue, but definitely not climate change
all the buildings belong to PEEL, they are main responsible of having the information on the energy uses and protection. I feel PEEL is working hard for a lot of issues, to
317
make things look and work great. But, not regarding the climate change issue
Participant-5 Occupant 6
Its attractive place. Its Safe place. There is a sense of wealth in this area.
No sense of community in the apartments blocks, which it’s the style of the area. It’s a Massive Chinese investment.
PEEL is doing a good job in keeping this place safe.
People are coming and going here, which this makes no sense of community here. And, The other parts of Salford are isolated from MediaCity.
Here things need to be more enhanced to achieve a good sense of community, as there are no places for kids. So, we do not see kids quiet often.
But regarding sustainability or climate change, I do not feel there is a difference here than UK. Ultimately, it goes to the land owner to make what you can do and what to know. I know that it’s here now cleaner.
There is some aspects regarding the development or the regeneration to Salford. But all in all, what happens here is no difference to what happens elsewhere.
Participant-6 Occupant 4 it’s nice place. It’s a dynamic place.
No, especially in the blocks.
In my blacks, and in my floor, there are 8 flats, I do not know anyone
I think if you can’t find it in a small place, you will never find it when it becomes bigger. If you build a community, you should think about this issue from the start.
Participant-7 Student 1 Its expensive place. No
318
Participant-8 Employee 2
Attractive. It nice because of the water and the fresh air.
No
The ‘Water’ is quite significant. Not everybody is iving/working next to this big water.
I think you can know about sustainability issues from the BBC. That essentially, we know from the BBC that these buildings are sustainable and relatively environmentally friendly.
About the climate change, I remember last year, there was a flood warning from the place where I lived from the Irwell. Then I thought of MediaCity and the canal, but not here. I felt safe. Because, I said this place is new. I should worry about the other places in Manchester, which built in 1900. But this area is well designed, so, we should be OK.
I do not know whether I see anything from PEEL regarding this. Especially, for the students or residents. I expect in this regard the university should have a deal in that.
Participant-9 Student 2
Attractive. It’s a fantastic place. But I miss the students’ social life. No
319
Participant-10
Employee 4
Its attractive. It’s clean and tidy place.
in terms of sense of community, I think no.
I feel this place can be a clinical place that it is very clean and very tidy.
I feel regarding the sense of community, it’s quite ‘Isolated’ in some way.
Here, we try to in digital production to do carbon (CO2) assessment for each production, so, for me being here it makes things easier to understand these aspects, especially recycling.I felt that PEEL are already putting good strategies and ethos for sustainability anyway in buildings.
we are knowing the general information about sustainability. And not deep information. Like a furry thought, in general.
Participant-11
Participant-12
Student 5
I thinks it isolated place from the bigger Salford.
No. I do not like the idea of living here. I do not see myself here in the long term.
It’s very special place to study, work, socialise maybe.
It’s not a good place for living. it’s similar to the small bubbles in the city centers. And you feel here is a place and Salford is the other.
I do not remember seeing anything around here as posts or anything relate to sustainability. I feel we know just the general things.
320
Participant-13 Occupant 1
Its attractive place. Its healthy place.
No, the sense of community is lost here.
I live here and in the old city. It’s a ‘Modern’ place.
here it’s a mixture of the working people and living people, so you lose this sense of local community here. They have no time to talk to each other.
For me, I do not have any worries about the impacts of climate change here, even if we are living by the river here. I think they designed the place high enough –about 2 meters- with a way is not going to affect, even by the worst scenario of climate change impacts. I think the design is quite good.
I think accessing the information about sustainability or climate change is part of the planning permission these days.
Participant-14 Occupant 9
There are some negative aspects, but at the moment, I think it’s (good). Its attractive
It’s a nice place here. The good thing about my apartment here is having the balcony and the water next to me, which gives the feeling of freshness, and the closeness to nature.
I think its different from Salford area, especially salford is a poorish area.
Participant-15 Occupant 7
Sustainable. For me it’s the feeling that this place is sustainable what makes me stay here. No
I know that besides sustainability, security, services that are provided
321
to the area, and building insulations are important.
Participant-16 Occupant 2
Its nice place and popular, and Attractive. I think it looks different to other areas of the city.
Not really there is a sense of community here, because there are a lot of businesses here and cannot see that there is a community like other areas.
Not sure who the local councilor is and whether they are working to create a better community.
We need more green places to gather and more little shops such as local newsagent, beauty shop or butchers where there is personal service and the owners get to know you.
Participant-17 Student 3
It’s a popular place. For me and as I want to be currently in a bubble, studying, I will put (Excellent) at the moment. But when including others in my life, and if I want to add peoples to my area, I have a limitation on this rating.
I think about the sense of community in MediaCity, it’s fostered as institutions, and that you see the BBC as an institution, the University.
I wouldn’t say that I feel that I’m a part of described as a ‘Local community’ here. This place is a place of ‘Business’, is not more of ‘Residents’.
It’s not a traditional urban settlement which breeds communities. It’s more as rise buildings, which that you are not necessarily facing people’s residences. we do not see a street with houses, schools or, post offices, or anything like that.
Buildings here are environmentally sustainable . There are nice natural features, green, and less concrete around. Even if the buildings here are environmentally sustainable, I do not think it’s overly helping the environment. I thinks it’s still a place to live and the resources are being used, and certain drain on the environment. So, I would not say instinctively that it gives out, or takes
Buildings here are climate neutral.
322
more. This is a small and compact area. I’m sure it has been built on these principles, but I’m not sure how marvelously this jump is doing.
Participant-18 Occupant 3 Its attractive place No Occupant 5 It is very attractive
area to live in. Its secure, safe, vibrant, it’s lovely. For me it’s ‘ideal’ as its 10 minutes from work.
No, I live here, and I did not see a lot of families here. It more for couples.
Everyone is driven to succeed and do well. Young professionals reside here. Its very secure.
And I think a lot of families are not living here, maybe because it’s the apartments. it’s more for couples, with the existence of the apartments. No shops here.
I was attracted as it has all the amenities I require, central location. Very scenic. Concerned about new developments around the area, dust pollution.
For climate change adaptation, I think there is a need to more focus globally, not only MediaCity. I feel that the winds are trapped here
323
Participant-19
Employee 5 - Occupant 12
I agree with the others. Where I come from business, I feel it’s here a business area, it’s a ‘good area’ for people to work together in one place.
No
About environmental issues awareness, I do not agree with Peter and Harry, I think it’s really interested. It was on Friday that I heard about the existence of the energy centre here in MediaCity.
I do not know about the climate change. Here in the meeting we have not discussed this issue, We talk here about technology aspects, but not about the climate change.
the materials and the reports are probably there in the council about the climate change aspects.
Participant-21
Occupant 8 Socially attached, yes. I feel I belong here. I’m recently a retired and there are a lot of business here around.
I think the ‘community’ in Media City is still at an early stage of development. Maybe it’s a community if you want to use the sense of community in the context of going for a drink with your friends/mates, but it’s not a community in terms of families and kids.
the water front is the anchor around which Media City is developing. This makes activities such as open air swimming, kayaking, Dragon Boat racing unique to MediaCity
It’s a community for ‘professionals’ not for ‘families and kids’. It’s a community for ‘young professionals’. I do think it’s a ‘kid’s friendly place’. Media City is primarily a work place and phase 2 development will greatly expand this. An increasing number of people will come into Media City
To be a community, we need people to live in Media City. There is a lot of new construction of apartments going on which will greatly increase the local population, but many of these are small flats bought by property investors (often Chinese) which could result in a large part of this
I’m not surprised about the existence of these energy centres and initiatives as a part of this development in this area. I am not really aware of this - it is something I would automatically expect for such a major new development. Sustainability principles were of no relevance to my decision to move to Media
About climate change, I remember last year, the water level in Salford quays was quite high, I saw it. And I worked carefully. If the properties get flooded, the insurance will get high. To be a flood area, the insurance will be high. It was a new thing here. The DOCKs have controlled it, it
I have no interest to access or find out more about this – I just expect that this sort of thing is done
324
to work and leave at the end of the day. This is likely to add to road congestion and overcrowding on trams. And there are no many shops in here.
population growth being transient short term tenants, without any sense of community and belonging.
City.
was alerting as there is no history of flood in this area.
Participant-22 Employee 6 I think it is attractive. The fact that it is a new area that attracts a diverse young professionals group, it gives a sense acceptance and identification with the group. There is a community, but it’s a different form of community, it’s a community of the young and international different form of community.
The building of new residential areas, variety of entertainment venues like the theatre, cinema, bars, and restaurants are some of the things that attract these group. It is safe to walk, jog. Social, charity and sport activities are quite regular in the area. We feel we are diverse community that lives in harmony.
It more expensive area for a community, you see the price is doubled there. Its more beacuet the prices are suiting or for the tourists not for the community, which its considered a challenge for the local community, and for thir future here. Somehow the ever increasing cost of living, entertainments costs, supermarket prices. Even in BOOTHS, Its double price.
325
Participant-23 Occupant 10
I feel more comfortable and I am really socially attached to this place and I couldn’t imagine myself in any other place. No
Participant-24 Student 6 - Employee 8
For me I can describe MediaCity as a ‘Different’ from other parts of Manchester.
No
this place is new and modern, the cost price for everything is higher.
I think influence of the environmental issues are served globally. And how these changes affect our lives, I do not feel much worried about that.
I do not know how they have designed this place, it floods very well. The water can access the buildings very. I think climate change is new case, and in Salford the houses are really old, and to adapt them, it can cost, so I do not how can this happened.
326
Themes coding using NVIVO- Focus groups’ results analysis
327
1. Community knowledge and awareness
328
2. Community feeling of belonging & Sense of community
329
3. Community Well-being
330
4. Community sustainability & Adaptive behaviour
331
5. Community participation
332
Appendix F
Ethics
333
Media City_ BREEAM Communities: Professionals perceptions on the Community feedback
(Evaluation & Enhancement)
The aim of this survey is to establish the views of key professional stakeholders as to the
following in the context of the water sector:
1. The success of the development in promoting adaptive capacity and resilience with
respect to community and governance
2. The local community feedback regarding the MediaCity as built, informed by their
experiences of working and / or living and / or studying there.
3. The role that BREEAM Communities (in terms of its implementation process, and its
constituent indicators) currently influenced the development, as built and its
occupant’s experience of the above themes?
4. Their opinions on the research findings regarding proposed enhancement of BC
This interviews comprises two main parts, are:
Part One: Community resilience & sustainability characteristics & the Influence of BC in
MediaCity. Addressing the following three themes:
• Theme _ One: Community management and performance of facilities
• Theme _ Two: Community Improving Wellbeing or Livelihoods
• Theme _ Three: Community knowledge Awareness and learning
Part Two: Governance Process Impacts & Actors involved & the influences of BC Addressing
the following three themes:
334
• Theme _ Four: Effective Flexible Collaborative Actions
• Theme_ Five: Continuous Evaluation & Monitoring
• Theme_ Six: Knowledge, Awareness & Learning
Theme _ One: Community management and performance of facilities
Q_ 1: To What extent do you feel MediaCity has delivered effectively with respect to
‘Community management and performance of facilities? ’
As a result of the (Focus Group) with the local community of MediaCity, the local community
identified the following as positive and negative aspects in association with this theme:
P.A_ 1 Sustainability Strategies in Buildings
N.A_1 No Influence for changing behaviour
N.A_2 No Information
N.A_3 Building performance & Management
Q _ 2: What are your views on this feedback?
Regarding the BC application in Media City and its influences on the process and the feedback:
Q_3: To what extent do you think that the BC indicators of the social focus have influenced
the outcome results here, such as Climate Change Adaptation, Demographic Needs &
Priorities & Delivery of physical facilities?
Q_4: How do you think BREEAM Communities has influenced this category to address CC
adaptation of Media City as an intermediary party?
335
Q_5: From your experience, what would you propose as actions / processes / roles that would
promote enhancement of resilience and adaptive capacity of the resulting neighbourhood
and its constituent communities? Could these be embedded in B.C? Or elsewhere?
Theme _ Two: Community Improving Wellbeing or Livelihoods
Q_ 1: To What extent do you feel MediaCity has delivered effectively with respect to
‘Community Improving Wellbeing or Livelihoods? ’
As results of the (Focus Group) with the local community of MediaCity, the local community
identified the following as positive and negative aspects in association with this theme:
Positive Aspects
P.A_ 1 Natural Environment
P.A_ 2 Site & Facilities
Negative Aspects
N.A_1 Health aspects
N.A_2 Social aspects
N.A_3 Accessibility to the site and buildings
Q _ 2: What are your views on this feedback?
Regarding the BC application in MediaCity and its influences on the process and the feedback:
Q_3: To what extent do you think that the BC indicators of the social focus have influenced
the outcome results here, such as Climate Change Adaptation, Demographic Needs &
Priorities & Delivery of physical facilities?
Q_4: How do you think BREEAM Communities has influenced this category to address CC
adaptation of MediaCity as an intermediary party?
336
Q_5: From your experience, what would you propose as actions / processes / roles that would
promote enhancement of resilience and adaptive capacity of the resulting neighbourhood
and its constituent communities? Could these be embedded in B.C? or elsewhere?
• Theme _ Three: Community knowledge Awareness and learning Q_ 1: To What extent do you feel MediaCity has delivered effectively with respect to
‘Community knowledge Awareness and learning? ’
As results of the (Focus Group) with the local community of MediaCity, the local community
identified the following as positive and negative aspects in association with this theme:
Positive Aspects
P.A_ 1 Practical aspects for environmental
sustainability
P.A_ 2 Role of Salford City Council
Negative
Aspects
N.A_1 Lack of Information
N.A_3 Role of developers & institutions
Q _ 2: What are your views on this feedback?
Regarding the BC application in MediaCity and its influences on the process and the
feedback:
Q_3: To what extent do you think that the BC indicators of the social focus have influenced
the outcome results here, such as Climate Change Adaptation, Demographic Needs &
Priorities & Delivery of physical facilities?
Q_4: How do you think BREEAM Communities has influenced this category to address CC
adaptation of MediaCity as an intermediary party?
337
Q_5: From your experience, what would you propose as actions / processes / roles that
would promote enhancement of resilience and adaptive capacity of the resulting
neighbourhood and its constituent communities? Could these be embedded in B.C? or
elsewhere?
Part Two: Governance Process Impacts & Actors involved & the influences of BC addressing
the following three themes:
• Theme _ Four: Effective Flexible Collaborative Actions Q_ 1: To What extent do you feel MediaCity has delivered effectively with respect to ‘Effective
Flexible Collaborative Actions? ’
As a result of the (Focus Group) with the local community of MediaCity, the local community
identified the following as positive and negative aspects in association with this theme:
Positive Aspects
P.A.1 Natural Environment
Negative Aspects
N.A_1 No Community Participation in the Community Development & Activities
N.A_2 It’s a business area not suitable for families
N.A_3 Role of Council
N.A_4 Role of Developers
N.A_5 Isolation
Q _ 2: What are your views on this feedback?
Regarding the BC application in MediaCity and its influences on the process and the
feedback:
Q_3: To what extent do you think that the BC indicators of (Consultation Plan, Consultation
and engagement, Design review, & Community management of facilities) influenced this
perceived outcome?
338
Q_4: How do you think BREEAM Communities has influenced this category to address CC
adaptation of MediaCity as an intermediary party?
Q_5: From your experience, what would you propose as actions / processes / roles that
would promote enhancement of resilience and adaptive capacity of the resulting
neighbourhood and its constituent communities? Could these be embedded in B.C? or
elsewhere?
• Theme_ Five: Continuous Evaluation & Monitoring Q_ 1: To What extent do you feel MediaCity has delivered effectively with respect to
‘Continuous Evaluation & Monitoring? ’
As a result of the (Focus Group) with the local community of MediaCity, the local community
identified the following as positive and negative aspects in association with this theme:
Aspects
No level of information is addressed by the local communities here regarding this theme as part of the governance process
Q _ 2: What are your views on this feedback?
Regarding the BC application in MediaCity and its influences on the process and the feedback:
Q_3: To what extent do you think that the BC indicators of (Consultation Plan, Consultation
and engagement, Design review, & Community management of facilities) influenced this
perceived outcome?
Q_4: How do you think BREEAM Communities has influenced this category to address CC
adaptation of MediaCity as an intermediary party?
339
Q_5: From your experience, what would you propose as actions / processes / roles that
would promote enhancement of resilience and adaptive capacity of the resulting
neighbourhood and its constituent communities? Could these be embedded in B.C? or
elsewhere?
• Theme_ Six: Knowledge, Awareness & Learning Q_ 1: To What extent do you feel Media City has delivered effectively with respect to
‘Knowledge, Awareness & Learning? ’
As results of the (Focus Group) with the local community of MediaCity, the local community
identified the following as positive and negative aspects in association with this theme:
Aspects No level of information is addressed by the local communities here
Q _ 2: What are your views on this feedback?
Regarding the BC application in Media City and its influences on the process and the
feedback:
Q_3: To what extent do you think that the BC indicators of (Consultation Plan, Consultation
and engagement, Design review, & Community management of facilities) influenced this
perceived outcome, with focus on the water sector?
Q_4: How do you think BREEAM Communities has influenced this category to address CC
adaptation of MediaCity as an intermediary party?
Q_5: From your experience, what would you propose as actions / processes / roles that
would promote enhancement of resilience and adaptive capacity of the resulting
neighbourhood and its constituent communities? Could these be embedded in B.C? Or
elsewhere?
340
Appendix G
Experts Interviews
(Interviews)
Media City_ BREEAM Communities: Professionals perceptions on the Community feedback
(Evaluation & Enhancement)
Interviewee One _ BREEAM Communities Assessor in MediaCity
Collaboration Actions
Natural environment: It’s probably because that it’s such a fast improvement from the previous
development, and that it has all these big, lovely, open public spaces with a green areas, besides, the
project is lying near the ship canal. It’s a win for Media City to be in this location. So, the perceptions
of the natural environment as a positive issue is because the local of Media City.
Business area not suitable for families: that’s right. Mainly, the participation of the local community
in the development process and the planning is not happening. At the beginning of the development,
there were letters that were ditibuted for the consultaion, which wording the BREEAM communities
aims. However, the consultation process was very poor. It only constitutes few pictures, and with
simple explanation of the project, and with no feedback letter on. The problem is that PEEL is dealing
with BREEAM as a check list, as not as a process. The consultation is mandatory and should be
happened. But it happens as the developer wants to. So, these consultations are not effective at all.
Not through the role of BREEAM assessors or actors.
I agree that there is no community participation, or even consultation. However, with the current
phases in MediaCity, they should do this, but they want. It’s not a priority for the developers.
I agree that the area is not suitable for families. That’s a fair criticism. However, there are social events
that happen in Media City near the Lowry, which it’s really nice. They put a fence near the Plaza for
some events across the year, and the families can go out, socialise. These events are happened that
the developers have ideas about the events, or the local authority is having plans for the events, like
the Olympics. But, these events are not happening on the grounds of asking the people what do you
want or think.
341
It’s important to look for community partners, a community who have been there and know about
the place, not in connection with the developers, but the community themselves, to discuss the plans
and the development phases, and effects on their lives, needs. So, having these community groups is
important. In others having groups of community that are belonging to the community, but operate
on a professionals level is a key.
Evaluation and monitoring
BREEAM requires using evaluation for the Buildings. But, BREEAM communities ‘no’, it is not a part of
the management team of facilities or communities. There is a requirement for the BREEAM to use a
building scale guide, and stuffiest maintaining, then the building management team, to operate them.
The management company is the one that is responsible to the stuff of the monitoring, evaluation.
I think there could be a published requirement about water and energy in association to BREEA
Communities to focus on making the management plans for communities. However, about water, I
think it’s rather than say to the people about using a less water, it’s easier to give them joy flush toilets,
or no water use fitting, rather than telling the exact on a topic from BBC.
In general B.C. has improved the communication between different players. Although a decent lecture
of the Building Service for students when you ask them to do BREEAM, they said that the only
important is the water and energy. The rest we can say anything about it. So, the BREEAM
Communities trainees do not see that there is a need to understand all these categories, and
associated professionals. But, it’s important of the actors that work with the tool to understand that
they are dealing with the various experts, engineers, and architects to interact with them. However,
talking with the architects is not that easy. Having BREEAM Communities, has made that not the
architects and the engineers are having the only word in the development, but, the tool actors are as
well, through the interaction way with those professionals. Particularly BREEAM for building has done
a lot, and broke things down, through enforcing the idea in the design team that every decision is
having a big impact whether as an architect, engineers, ecologist.
But, we got a ‘stationary’ position from the government; however, it’s still optional. But, its slow long
slogs to get there. So, with the governance actors, the communication is not easy. But the efforts that
need to be do regarding the community, needs huge amount. It needs a publication of information,
and even through making a TV reality show about it, to make the community think seriously of their
environment, and through engaged more.
342
The communication with the council is important. But the priority is for sure to be in developing the
deprived areas when compares to sustainability and encouraging the new developers to that.
The communication and education, I think is the most two things that are needed in BREEAM
Communities. This should be as central issue in B.C., not only in the developing countries, but
everywhere.
‘I think it’s important to think with a way of not saying that the community are stupid, they do not
understand the questions why should we ask them….Well, go and explain to them’
So, we can’t expect anything from the community without giving them. We have to give them the
input and at least the basic information, to get the outcome that is desired. It’s important that to give
the useful, informative, updated information, and to interpret it to the community, and if possible
make the information as a part of the education system, if necessary.
I think it’s a missed opportunity, the consultation process, or the community consultation side of the
things. There was a consideration of sustainability strategies in the planning and the construction
process, but the application of these sustainability strategies through a wide collaboration process of
actors did not happen. Mainly, it should be happened through making the community leading their
own ways into the development through their engagement, but it did not happen.
There are still ways to do consultation, whether in the re-generation development or the new
designed development. The thing that can make the difference is when you have the construction
phase assessment. So the same that happen with the buildings, that you can get the BREEAM right,
until you do the construction assessment. That because, when it happens, during the construction
phase, people are failing, and falling down, and realise that they did not do the things that they have
said actually, and when they start to do this on one or two, or three of them, then they start learning,
and doing these things properly. But, also, being more prescriptive about what constitutes good
consultation, and I do not think that there is anything near enough about these consultation right
application, despite the great knowledge of people about them, and in doing them right. There is a
fear from the big developers to do these consultations, and also the council itself is not pushing the
developers to do the consultation, because they want the development.
The consultation need to be happened as a learning cycles, and not happen through setting the
questions that need to be asked and distributed earlier, and also setting the answers earlier as well.
So, the consultation needs to ‘Consulted’.
343
I think BREEAM Community could play a part in that, and emboldening the local council to be more
doing this…they can do it in a governmental level, through putting the building rags, but, it’s difficult,
for any kind of restriction that could be happening, especially with something that is ‘open ended’ and
‘expensive’ like the consultation process.
As a professional, I do not think the Quays are considering as natural environment at all, but it’s a
reclaimed piece of industrial heritage, but there is nothing natural. But, I think for the site and the
community facility, compared to before, in 30 years ago, so, it’s interesting that the people having the
perception of the natural environment.
However, I’m not surprised about the social aspects; Salford Quays has been a place for high quality
jobs, with relatively high quality housing, and well paid jobs for professionals. I think the community
should not think that they should send their kids for school in their neighbourhood only, what it should
be only MediaCity? When the benefits should be for society as a whole, behind the MediaCity.
However, I think this is still a challenge. Which this question is important to be asked however, that
after 30 years of working on this site and the infrastructure, are the communities alongside the
sustainable project benefited from the development? I think perhaps, but how their lives improved,
and whether that because of the sustainability of or the Quays development, I really do not know. So,
I think it’s important to put the social infrastructure as important part of the development, and I think
in MediaCity, it’s like Manchester city council lots of housing, lots of apartments, lots of people living
there, but how the social infrastructure is still not there.
I’m not surprised if the people think that this place is not suitable for families or children, however, I
think this thing is still a challenge in MediaCity and elsewhere.
I think in B.C. this thing should be considred not only in MediaCity, but in the communities around
MediaCity, through making facilities for the MediaCity community and for the external community as
well, to be both benefited. Because, for the people of MediaCity, they have a challenge which/where
the schools that they should send their kids to?
Interviewee Two_ Media City Developer:
Theme _ one: Community management and performance of facilities:
344
For this theme, I think Media City can affectively deliver this theme.
I think the mechanisms are in place to happen. PEEL are the main developers and owners of this
project. They rent places for tenants like the BCC, ITV and offices, people are bought here like Holiday
Inn, and people who bought apartments the PEEL sold apartments, and like this building the Heart.
So, the combination of people who rent the property and who own it, and there are another category,
the people who work here, or the people who study. So, with combination of people, PEEL have
different management companies on site, supplementary companies who are responsible for
operating the cleanliness of the site, safety, the energy systems, all these kind of things, people come
to us, who live and work here, basically they come to us to tell us what is happening, reported to us,
sending to us bills to pay these things.
So, there are these mechanisms in place. In terms of they are working, I think there are problems, in
terms of (leak) in the buildings, which good construction should be happened, but, unfortunately,
there are in these years reports back to the management companies and developers from the
residents, they want to deal with it. Communication process is in place to manage/maintain facilities.
However, it should be said that because this place is sustainable, many people are buying
apartments/investments in this place, but they do not live here, they rent it for tenants. They do not
worry about the property, but they worry about the tents when they do not pay rents! So,
communication can break down. Some landlords can text the tenants, for example when the water
leak happen in the lift, so they were told that the problem solving will be done in two days, to be
informed. Otherwise, people want to know how these thing are happening, who they can call and how
these problems are fixed. So, the communication is extremely important, for maintain performance.
About the feedback on this theme, I think they are all correct. Certainly, the building are constructed
with sustainable strategies. Which, definitely, B.C. holds credits for that, however regarding the
operations of building and facilities, there are changes happen with the management companies,
because the developer was not happy with the management company, and the new management
company seems to be community orientated, and communication information, however, to what
degree that on a sustainable issue, I doubt, I think we should do better, and not only reporting
problems. So, the response to complain if you like or problems, will be where a good management
existed, by telling the people about performance of the building, what ex, energy system we are using,
water consumption, carbon emission in site...etc. and that’s not happening. I agree with the
community there is no information about the strategies of this buildings for the residents, there is
nothing.
345
For the adaptive behaviour, I think there is an encouragement for the people on the recycling issue,
which the idea behind B.C. is to have three recycling in the kitchen area, where you have to recycle
regularly, and separate the rubbish, and take down to the recycling point down on a daily basis. But,
no encouragement on the water use, just the recycle. I think the idea of changing behaviour is difficult.
But the idea of BRE is difficult. I do not know how we should influence the behavioural change to
become more sustainable.
We got low energy light in the buildings, and more effective controls, but I think for the occupant’s
behaviour, I think the building has failed by not having enough automatic operation in apartments. As
the lights go off in the corridor, that doesn’t require the people to do anything. But I think the heating
controller is disappointed, as the other parts of the UK. About ‘water’ there was a leak happened in
my apartment in the tap, I have been told by the water company that my water consumption was
higher than normal, so, I think that was interesting. And they told me to look out, so, then the water
reduced. However, this is general information, not something detailed.
I think B.C has really make good job for the building sustainability, but for the social part, I do not
think. But, I think at least, there should be on the ground, posts, saying that there should be
explanation for the strategies and the sustainability, for the locals, like a ‘Museum’ to show what is
special about, for example the ‘Plant’ in MediaCity, why its important. The people do not know that,
only the experts know. I think with having these posts, we will know the feedback, and the support,
and that’s will be good for the people who reported that there is no information. Which in this case
that will make us know the ‘Historical’ issues, which are import part for the sustainability solutions. I
think when telling people about the impact of sustainable strategies, that will make people ‘proud’ &
‘knowledgeable’ to see why this approach is right for everyone. However, we do not know, I do not
know! But we should know.
Therefore, I agree, about no information for the impact of this development on the climate. The
enhancement can be done through more attention on the sustainable factors, and that the whole
development, PEEL, management and others should follow the sustainable practices. So, more focus
need on BREEAM operational process. I think B.C. operations shod be followed, not only for the design
and development only. Second, I think, there should be a communication of the success with other
sites/cities; communicate these strategies with whole Manchester, to show them what we were
doing, this is results.
346
So, the management companies should have monthly, or even annual reporting systems to say this is
the criteria, and this is how we were doing. I think these feedback should be sent to the local
community first. I think the council should be more involved with the development and the outcomes,
to know whether should follow the same criteria for the other stages here.
However, there is a difficulty in communicating this issue with other developments and communities,
because of the changes in PEEL, and in the staff of BRE. So, the communication of sustainability issues
is still depending on individuals, and not on organisation that can kept the work and to make it better
for the next time. Besides, the people are changing their jobs, addressed, the economy, all these can
affect the development process and the communications.
Theme _ Two: Community Improving Wellbeing or Livelihoods:
I think despite people are coming and going in MediaCity, but there is an atmosphere for community.
There is a social media going on the feedback platforms. I think for the health aspects, there is positive
feedback from the people regarding that they can run walk, have pleasant atmosphere that encourage
the people to do the sport, along the qeuys, and parks besides the gymnasium and other facilities not
in this site, but close to here. Which that is a part of B.C., that to address the link between the
community with other districts or communities, by having the gym across the Lowry, so as to extend
the community to the other parts, to make it big and connected community.
However, as Mediacity is about technology or digital world, there is a UCT (University Technical
College) for students to focus on digital learning technology designs, so education is available.
However, I still agree that this area is not suitable for families. I think when they done it they put the
apartments buildings, to satisfy the young professionals who work in the Media industry, so that the
BBC people who come from London to able to work here, however, it’s not developing to a proper
community, and there is a ned to a family base. I think the apartments maybe should be children
apartment. So I do not think the MediaCity apartments are suitable for children, and certainly no
schools here for young students.
I disagree about the canal is not clean, I think it’s clean, It’s much better, It was really dirty, before, if
any person drink from the canal, when he should be taken to the hospital, or probably you will die.
Now, it’s cleaner. Now the water is oxygenated, and that to kill LG and other kinds of plants, so the
risks in the water of bacteria growth is reduced. And the docks are using for swimming, and now the
water is continued to improve. Even for the heating system of MediaCity, the renewable strategy, the
water should be filtered before putting back to the canal, because we don’t want dirty water for our
347
equipment, and also we oxygenated as well. So, the result is that we use the water to cool our
equipment and give us low carbon energy, and in so, we clean the canal deliberately, which is part of
the outcome.
For enhancement, it could be done reporting on the development, with monthly reports about these
implemented strategies with statistics to show for the local communities here. by sending emails and
websites, or using an app, it could be (MediaCity App) , to tell the people for example that the water
quality is measured this week, and it’s found that its better this year than last year., however we do
not have that communication, and that’s the failing really.
I think there is a business here in the Lowry, and they should be think of MediaCity as a one
community, and not with a way that have a competition, so they should benefit from the site here.
And that what B.C. is all about. So, even if there is no nursery here, and it’s near the site. For the
parking, there is parking, but it’s very expensive. It to drive people to not to use the cars, I love car
however. There are excellent busses, trains, walkways, shops and everything, so no need to drive
around the site. However, they should think of transferring or buying furniture or having visitors. And
that’s why the developers have misuse the ide, through becoming more stringent, with the fine on
cars parking, and the people feel ripped off as a result.
For the effects of the risks, particularly, the flood, people think that the building are built in the right
place, flood risk are dealt with it, and I do not think Media City is in risk of the flood. However, Liverpool
could be in the risk of flood, when high rise level is above 3 meters, and that could back up here. But,
still sea level rising is a big problem.
Theme _ Three: Community knowledge Awareness and learning:
I think in general, in MediaCity, there is a level of training people and for delivering special programs
or internships, so more work opportunities here for the young people, and to get in the industry.
For the knowledge issues, there is a need to make all Salford as a sustainable city or community. I
think the council needs to be more supportive and insisted on the importance of sustainability that if
you want to make a development in Salford this development should be sustainable, to encourage
people on living in a sustainable way, and that if you want to live here, then it should be in a sustainable
world, and there is a training and education that should be available for this purposes.
So, I think Salford City Council should be doing more when it comes to make the community more
aware of sustainability matters and to encourage the whole developments to be sustainable, for
better future, and not to focus on employment issues, and taxes..etc.
348
However, there is a problem regarding the knowledge and awareness, when it comes to individuals,
that some people like the developers, they do not want to listen, its correct, because they are busy
doing other things.
I think because the developers here are staying for five years, and the to another project, but the local
community are staying for longer term, so, the engagement with the local community early one, to
know what they think, what’s there feedback, is important, about what sustainability means is really
important. However, here, through the people are not fully aware of sustainable features and how
they can use them, and the developers probably do not listen to things that ….
Theme _ Four: Effective Flexible Collaborative Actions
BC needs to focus on connecting the community with the top-down governance actors. through the
early engagement is important to be undertaken and enhanced through BC role. Particularly regarding
the process of connecting them and to get the feedback is really important. The engagement through
the developers is not valid. However, despite that the community changeability, having a general
opinion an apply that, that can make things going forward positively. However, this could not be done
without ‘Educating’ people about what is sustainability and how they can use the facilities, they will
not be aware. Otherwise, this will make sustainability work against you.
There is still a need to advertise the engagement and the meeting organized after the occupancy stage,
particularly in projects when the development is still on. What happens is that the people say their
opinion, and the developer ignores it. However, these meetings ae not ‘interactive’, but they are
‘informative’. The community is only listening. However the engagement process is not good. In BC,
the consultation plan is good, but whether the people following it. I do not think so.
Even the people are staying for few years, they still have opinions, and they are the community, and
their input is important. The community needs to communicate their ideas, and if they have plans, or
something they did not like to speak about it, however in general the consultation process is not
enough.
The communication between the community and experts is not an issue in terms of the technical
language and interpretation of ideas. However, this process is still dependent on the experts’
personality and their way of accepting the ideas.
349
Theme_ Five: Continuous Evaluation & Monitoring
The buildings are built in the right place, and the flood risk assessment is done. The protection from
flood is done, through the ship canal. This is the importance of BC. That considering the avoidance of
risks through selecting development site. Media City is not at risk at all. However Liverpool is and that
could be back up here. Media City is designed to face and get rid of rain
Theme_ Six: Knowledge, Awareness & Learning
Regarding the learning in general, BBC and ITV are important to encourage the learning for the Salford
Students here, through learning and training programs and work opportunities, which this is important
for the economic aspects of this project. Not only BBC. There are small companies here. This is
important for the students to make jobs available for them.
I agree about the importance of MediaCity website for the knowledge building and awareness for
community about their development and community matters. Salford City council should have
embracing opportunities for the whole Salford to be sustainable. The ways that the strategies are
communicating and advertised about the sustainability of the place and the choice of living here
means that you are living in sustainable world, is important. Focusing on developing community
knowledge and awareness about their place is important; however the unemployment and taxes are
having the priorities for the council to focus on these matters. However, for the sustainable future,
we need a sustainable world. Another challenge is the communication.
BC needs to create better sources for community awareness through the engagement process.
Building orientation and open spaces, plants, sun-light are all considered in MediaCity and make good
natural environment. The parks here are important regarding the linkage among the spaces and for
the site connection and movement. However, there is a need to more focus, and to have more open
spaces and parks here and having green roofs on the car parks. So, there is a need to more greenery.
• Interview Three _ Behalf of Salford City Council:
Theme _ one: Community management and performance of facilities:
I think it depends on defining what a community is. I believe I’m part of MediaCity team and design
and I also live near MediaCity, few miles away.
350
I think the biggest challenge for BREEAM community as well as for buildings is the sustainable strategy
whether water or another sector, is that you put the plan and then communicating the strategies, and
that’s is difficult. The community population is changing, particularly at the beginning, you lost that
bit. So, the strategies are there, but how they influence behaviour, this is not existed. However, the
biggest challenge we have is translating the strategy into behaviour. I think even if the information is
given about sustainability for the population, people are moving, thee community is transit
community, so they will take their information when they are moving. So, I think even if people are
knowing that this is a sustainable pace, but they are still not know how to use it in a sustainable way.
Which I think the feedback is by the community or when giving it to them is important, but it’s a
challenge for any sustainable strategy, for the level of to use things or should not use.
I think here is an information, but it might be in a position where the users cannot get to them and
use them, if it’s, they can be very technical, or brief for the engineers or contracts or architects, and
not appropriate for the users. These are technical specifications. And these things are changing, so,
finding the new things and update could be not available for the users. It should be said that the
management of site and building are changing, and it takes time for the new management to know
what are the needs, and the users, and how to adapt to this, besides there are tenants, who might
also have another understanding of sustainability. So, every time, the users or tenants of the building
are changed or the managers, which this is normally back how things are normally doing, and that the
essential things at the start might get lost. It’s not always like this, but this is the natural play.
I suspect that the main drivers for risks assessment are the responsible for the delivery of facilities and
strategies. For the adaptation to C.C., I think it’s addressing by BREEAM Communities, which this thing
should be a part of the development process. While the flood risks assessment is part of the planning
requirements to do. However, I’m not saying that the other are not part in there, but, they are less
explicit. The Quays themselves are not that difficult in flood risks assessment, they are very dependent
on how the ship canal maintained, because the ship canal are part of the flood defense systems for
greater Manchester, so if things are not there, then the site will get flooded. So, the key here is the
water quality. Which to compare the water quality with the 1990s, It’s much better than it used to be,
so there is a real emphasis on this issue for a while. There is a distinction between water qualities in
the Quays itself, which have been decreased very dramatically, and the water quality in the canal, and
the water quality in MediaCity, however, the decreased could not be done withouht the collaboration
between all the partners, however, there is an emphasis on doing that. However, I do not think that
the inclusion of B.C. has helped in this issue, because, MediaCity is not depending on the water quality
issue, but they can influence.
351
For enhancement, and necessarily in B.C, I think coming with a strategy that is simple to use is
important, and that with thinking of the people, and how they are doing these strategies without
thinking, is an important issue, So, making information that is easy to understand and to be accesses
should be done ultimately, because the more complex the thing to be, the less sustainable it can be.
Theme _ Two: Community Improving Wellbeing or Livelihoods:
For me as a professional, I do not think the Quays are considering as natural environment at all, but
it’s a reclaimed piece of industrial heritage, but there is nothing natural. But, I think for the site and
the community facility, compared to before, in 30 years ago, so, it’s interesting that the people having
the perception of the natural environment.
However, I’m not surprised about the social aspects, Salford Quays has been a place for high quality
jobs, with relatively high quality housing, and well paid jobs for professionals. I think the community
should not think that they should send their kids for school in their neighbourhood only, what it should
be only MediaCity? When the benefits should be for society as a whole, behind the MediaCity.
However, I think this is still a challenge. Which this question is important to be asked however, that
after 30 years of working on this site and the infrastructure, are the communities alongside the
sustainable project benefited from the development? I think perhaps, but how their lives improved,
and whether that because of the sustainability of or the Quys development, I really do not know. So,
I think it’s important to put the social infrastructure as important part of the development, and I think
in MediaCity, its like Manchester city council lots of housing, lots of apartments, lots of people living
there, but how the social infrastructure is still not there.
I’m not surprised if the people think that this place is not suitable for families or children, however, I
think this thing is still a challenge in MediaCity and elsewhere.
I think in B.C. this thing should be considred not only in MediaCity, but in the communities around
MediaCity, through making facilities for the MediaCity community and for the external community as
well, to be both benefited. Because, for the people of MediaCity, they have a challenge which/where
the schools that they should send their kids to?
352
Theme _ Three: Community knowledge Awareness and learning:
I think regarding the feedback of the communities that it’s good to hear that Role of Salford City
council is positive here, I think regarding sustainability aspects, the council has been always proactive
in enhancing the water quality and the sustainability of the Quays as an important central part of
Salford. And for the developers, I think they should have a better role to influence the sustainability
issues, that I think they should focus on making the information accessible or available to the people,
and managers, rather than focusing on the economic aspects, and then to make the changes in the
management teams, as a result, which will affect the process of sustainability. Most the time, the
developer business scheme is built to address s the benefits of the scheme in the short term, so,
maybe, a partnership with the Salford Council on the intentions of making the translation of issues
with the local on both shorts term and longer, which I thing good developers should make this thing
happen. And maybe both contractors and developers can do this, so, people can see that both are
doing this.
And I think a good developer should make a good relationship with the local communities. However,
finding a representative of the local communities maybe an important issue, and not the responsibility
of the developer.
I think for knowledge, interaction, wellbeing, I think the connection between the various communities
is important thing to be considered through the role of B.C. so, its not only the connection between
the Media City community, but with Salford, and even with Manchester, however, this is difficult. But
I think its part of B.C. role.
However, this is a mixed development, with a previallged setting of people, and with benefits that to
be get from this variety. I think it’s like a city centre, but its still not as the city center, when there is a
lively way of living in the night.
Theme _ Four: Effective Flexible Collaborative Actions
I think for the planning, or the development, it’s like Manchester, It’s a business place. I think there
are competing opinions about the process that some people want to be involved in these buildings.
So, I think the idea of having a community is not existed and it’s harder to be found, rather it’s a re-
generated projects with implemented sustainable strategies. I think it’s a dynamic issue, and that the
353
ways the things are developed, it will be changed on its own, because it’s hard to see how things are
happening in 30 or 50n years. There is nothing surprising in the people feedback here, and the project
is new.
It’s all about what people are expecting when they moved to MediaCity.
Even I was working on the behalf of SCC, but I do not know about the areas of consultation plan,
engagement, and management explicitly.
About BREEAM Communities
I think they should be as Intermediaries, especially now, the development is neighbourhood is still
under development and constructions, and local communities are still a part of the process. I think
they should more involved with the communities of different phases, starting from the communities
of phase one, and how that influences the development and the community identification. B.C. should
help with that, through creating a stable community, which I think this was difficult issue in MediaCity.
So, this will back on what is a community? What to expect in living in this place? How to be involved
in the community? And with other communities? And how to communicate your needs, demands,
and experiences for a better community?
Theme_ Five: Continuous Evaluation & Monitoring
I think about adaptation to C.C. maybe the local communities will not know anything, because there
is nothing is required from them. If they were been told to do something or know anything about
adaptation that will make it different.
I think MediaCity is not that big ion these issues, I think making better lives for people and better built
environment is what are there.
I thing if the new tenants that are not part of the initial consultation phase, there should be an
operational phase, where they can participate in.
354